Troops Deserve More Than Bumper Sticker Support

[ReillyT]

Once again, for the slow... not approving an increase IS NOT a cut.

Buddy... you really shouldn't be talking about the slow. However, at some point, not increasing the budget can result in a cut in individual benefits.

 

[jillian]

Once again, for the slow... not approving an increase IS NOT a cut.

Unless, of course, you've done something that far increases the *need* for the funds... you know, like create a situation where soldiers are coming home injured and in need of services.

Or do you want to claim that the per capita funds available to each vet are the same during wartime as peacetime?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Unless, of course, you've done something that far increases the *need* for the funds... you know, like create a situation where soldiers are coming home injured and in need of services.

Or do you want to claim that the per capita funds available to each vet are the same during wartime as peacetime?

Keep changing the goal post to support a lie, nice try, it doesn't work.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Perhaps this will put the issue in terms people can understand ReillyT, you're going abit above our friends heads with this one.

Let's say you spend 100 bucks a month to feed two dogs. Your wife brings home a cute puppy, but you're a tight wad so you spend exactly the same amount of money on dog food. The puppy grows and soon you have three full grown dogs to feed, only you're still spending 100 bucks. The two dogs are eating LESS than they were before, it's a CUT in their food intake.

Now replace "dogs" with "suicidal veterans" and replace food with "moneys spent within the VA on suicide prevention" and factor in that veterans suicide is at an ALL TIME HIGH, you've got an equation where Bush Administration is CUTTING necessary psychological health benefits for Veterans. Yeesh.

Here's another good example, you're running a war really, really badly and lot sof American soldiers are being physically injured and maimed. The number of INJURED soldiers perpetually increases you keep veterans healthcare benefits the same. This is a cut. Oy, why don't people get this.

 

[Annie]

Perhaps this will put the issue in terms people can understand ReillyT, you're going abit above our friends heads with this one.

Let's say you spend 100 bucks a month to feed two dogs. Your wife brings home a cute puppy, but you're a tight wad so you spend exactly the same amount of money on dog food. The puppy grows and soon you have three full grown dogs to feed, only you're still spending 100 bucks. The two dogs are eating LESS than they were before, it's a CUT in their food intake.

Now replace "dogs" with "suicidal veterans" and replace food with "moneys spent within the VA on suicide prevention" and factor in that veterans suicide is at an ALL TIME HIGH, you've got an equation where Bush Administration is CUTTING necessary psychological health benefits for Veterans. Yeesh.

Here's another good example, you're running a war really, really badly and lot sof American soldiers are being physically injured and maimed. The number of INJURED soldiers perpetually increases you keep veterans healthcare benefits the same. This is a cut. Oy, why don't people get this.

The spin on the CBS story on "suicidal veterans" which was actually on those serving in the armed forces has been questionable, to say the least.

They used 'raw numbers'. There was no accounting for sex. I know women are in the military, my guess is that women in the military are probably disproportionately able to off themselves, compared to civilians. However, the vast number of service people are male. The vast number fall within the age range of 19-30. What percentage of civilian males in that group commit suicide? I'll bet close.

 

[ReillyT]

The spin on the CBS story on "suicidal veterans" which was actually on those serving in the armed forces has been questionable, to say the least.

They used 'raw numbers'. There was no accounting for sex. I know women are in the military, my guess is that women in the military are probably disproportionately able to off themselves, compared to civilians. However, the vast number of service people are male. The vast number fall within the age range of 19-30. What percentage of civilian males in that group commit suicide? I'll bet close.

I didn't see the story, so I am playing catch up here, but why wouldn't you want to use raw numbers for suicides of military personnel? Why would disaggregation be better? What is the significance of whether the suicide was male or female?

 

[Annie]

I didn't see the story, so I am playing catch up here, but why wouldn't you want to use raw numbers for suicides of military personnel? Why would disaggregation be better? What is the significance of whether the suicide was male or female?

Males are more successful at succeeding at committing suicide, though women 'attempt' it more. Men tend to go for firearms. Women tend to go for slashing. Men go for the head, women rarely do. As I said, in the service it might be a fair guess that females serving would be more familiar with firearms and more successful.

Young people in general are more likely to attempt suicide. Recognizing that, to look at the military then compare it to 'US stats' is statistically wrong. You have to account for age and sex in such comparisons, at least to have significance. Of course, not doing so makes for a good blood story.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Kathianne, um the CBS story also demonstrated that veterans suicide rates are up overall. Regardless of gender shouldn't the Bush Administration even pretend to care about that and increase funding for suicide prevention. Like...how are you fighting this?

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, um the CBS story also demonstrated that veterans suicide rates are up overall. Regardless of gender shouldn't the Bush Administration even pretend to care about that and increase funding for suicide prevention. Like...how are you fighting this?

So are suicide stats for the US at large...how are you fighting this?

 

[jillian]

The spin on the CBS story on "suicidal veterans" which was actually on those serving in the armed forces has been questionable, to say the least.

They used 'raw numbers'. There was no accounting for sex. I know women are in the military, my guess is that women in the military are probably disproportionately able to off themselves, compared to civilians. However, the vast number of service people are male. The vast number fall within the age range of 19-30. What percentage of civilian males in that group commit suicide? I'll bet close.

It isn't "spin* Kathianne.... It's why the Joshua Omvig law was signed. This is from the IAVA.org site... the vets of the Iraq and Afghanistan actions:

The new law comes amid growing concerns over mental health issues borne by veterans who have seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. The VA Inspector General, in a report last May, said Veterans Health Administration officials estimate 1,000 suicides per year among veterans receiving care within VHA and as many as 5,000 per year among all living veterans.

http://www.iava.org/component/option,com_/Itemid,116/option,content/task,view/id,2569/

Those numbers are not spin and they are not ok... the vets make sacrifices, they deserve care when they're back.

 

[Annie]

It isn't "spin* Kathianne.... It's why the Joshua Omvig law was signed. This is from the IAVA.org site... the vets of the Iraq and Afghanistan actions:



http://www.iava.org/component/option,com_/Itemid,116/option,content/task,view/id,2569/

Those numbers are not spin and they are not ok... the vets make sacrifices, they deserve care when they're back.

Yes it was Jillian, which is why you just ignored what I posted. All the link does is confirm Bush's caving to whatever group, in his quest for legacy. I can't wait for him to come out in favor of driver's licenses for illegals, regardless of NY's back off.

 

[jillian]

Yes it was Jillian, which is why you just ignored what I posted. All the link does is confirm Bush's caving to whatever group, in his quest for legacy. I can't wait for him to come out in favor of driver's licenses for illegals, regardless of NY's back off.

I don't think I ignored anything, Kathianne. I think I just disagree with the opinion which you didn't offer a link to except for the one where you said cbs was "spinning". I disagree and don't particularly think a blogger's opinion is a basis upon which I should change my mind.

That's ok... won't be the first time we disagree.

I do agree with the *why* Bush did it... but that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem. It just meant he's a tosser who didn't care about doing anything during the course of his presidency that would have benefitted anyone but his cronies.

 

[Alpha1]

Try picking numbers that aren't three to four years old to compare with current numbers. That Factcheck article is old hat. The other two sites aren't reliable, unless, of course, you like the admin's propaganda machine.

As for the NYT being "left", yeah...so left that allowing Judy Miller's propaganda campaign to be published, lies and all, probably did so much damage that Bush was able to sneak his little war past Congress.

Veterans Affairs budget for 2000........47 Billion dollars
Veterans Affairs budget(est.) for 2008..83.3 Billion dollars

Increase of 78% since Bush took office

http://tinyurl.com/3a6kb7

 

[jillian]

Veterans Affairs budget for 2000........47 Billion dollars
Veterans Affairs budget(est.) for 2008..83.3 Billion dollars

Increase of 78% since Bush took office

http://tinyurl.com/3a6kb7

2007 and 2008 are estimates and don't count.

Now tell me how many more troops have been deployed and are in need of assistance and care since 2003 and break itdown per capita. Would you say there's a 70% increase in troops being deployed to war zones and being wounded, or would you say they're in the multiple hundreds of percentages.

You're still missing the point.

 

[maineman]

Veterans Affairs budget for 2000........47 Billion dollars
Veterans Affairs budget(est.) for 2008..83.3 Billion dollars

Increase of 78% since Bush took office

http://tinyurl.com/3a6kb7

why don't you show what is was from 2000 to 2006 so we can see what sort of increases the republicans put in place on their own?

 

[Alpha1]

why don't you show what is was from 2000 to 2006 so we can see what sort of increases the republicans put in place on their own?

Whats your point....you can see it for yourself....

2000 ...... $47,000,000,000
2006 ...... $69,800,000,000

About 50% increase....

Bush will be responsible for 2007 and 2008 too.....

 

[Alpha1]

How about Clintons last for years in office....

1997.....39.2 billion
2000.....47 billion

A measly 19.8%

 

[Alpha1]

Budget for Veterans Affairs

1992.....$33,800,000,000

Clinton elected

2000....$47,000,000,000

8 years of Clinton....increase of about 39%

http://tinyurl.com/2mp38t

 

[Alpha1]

SO LETS HEAR NO MORE BULLSHIT ABOUT BUSH CUTTING THE BUDGET FOR VETERANS AFFAIRS......

 

[jillian]

SO LETS HEAR NO MORE BULLSHIT ABOUT BUSH CUTTING THE BUDGET FOR VETERANS AFFAIRS......

LOL! Ahhhh.. .yes... we were all waiting for you to explain it to us.

Now do let us know when you buy a clue.