Troops Deserve More Than Bumper Sticker Support

[CorpMediaSux]

How about not re-electing a President who slashed Veterans benefits during a war time and has overseen the most stingy war department in terms of post-conflict assistance. Oh wait, no republicans voted him back into office in 2004. CONGRATS!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How about not re-electing a President who slashed Veterans benefits during a war time and has overseen the most stingy war department in terms of post-conflict assistance. Oh wait, no republicans voted him back into office in 2004. CONGRATS!

A LIE. The Veterans benefits were never cut. In fact the VA has gotten more money every year under Bush. Being a vet I know all about the VA, Further Under Bush and the Republicans the VA is now allowed to concurrently pay VA benefits and you can still receive retired pay. Before 2004 that was not allowed. For every dollar VA paid you, you had to give up one dollar of retired pay. Now those wounded in combat or retired with 20 years active duty can get both payments.

THAT alone is a huge increase in Veteran benefits. Further the Bush Admin has ordered the VA to open longer with regular office hours for the problems of veterans and required new programs to deal with those problems.

 

[Foxfyre]

How about not re-electing a President who slashed Veterans benefits during a war time and has overseen the most stingy war department in terms of post-conflict assistance. Oh wait, no republicans voted him back into office in 2004. CONGRATS!

What President did that? It sure as heck wasn't Bush as Veteran's benefit funding has increased enormously since he took office.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

FoxFyre
What President did that? It sure as heck wasn't Bush as Veteran's benefit funding has increased enormously since he took office.

Further the Bush Admin has ordered the VA to open longer with regular office hours for the problems of veterans and required new programs to deal with those problems.

OK, so let's try putting these statements in conversation with the FACTS of Veteran treatment under the Bush Administration during the Iraq War.

Bush Administration vetoes massive benefits package for Veterans, in particular suicide prevention at a time when veteran suicide is at an all time. http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071113/cm_huffpost/072422

Or how about this charming set of FACTS

Tens of thousands of reservists and National Guard troops, whose jobs were supposedly protected while they were at war, were denied prompt re-employment upon their return or else lost seniority, pay and other benefits. Some 1.8 million veterans were unable to get care in veterans’ facilities in 2004 and lacked health insurance to pay for care elsewhere. Meanwhile, veterans seeking disability payments faced huge backlogs and inordinate delays in getting claims and appeals processed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/opinion/12mon1.html?hp

 

[Foxfyre]

OK, so let's try putting these statements in conversation with the FACTS of Veteran treatment under the Bush Administration during the Iraq War.

Bush Administration vetoes massive benefits package for Veterans, in particular suicide prevention at a time when veteran suicide is at an all time. http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071113/cm_huffpost/072422

Or how about this charming set of FACTS

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/opinion/12mon1.html?hp

Remember that the NYT has been pro-leftist for a long time with less than stellar ethics when it comes to presenting news stories, and the Huffington Post is a pure leftwing media darling. Also in leftwing wacko vernacular--the language utilized by the Democrats--a decrease in an increase is called a budget cut plus they will not acknowledge that shfting funding from a little utilized program to a program where there is more need is also labeled a 'cut' by the Democrats.

So here's some real numbers to chew on.


http://www.factcheck.org/print_funding_for_veterans_up_27_but_democrats.html

http://www.house.gov/pryce/06 releases/092506_veterans_accomplishments.htm

http://www.militaryconnections.com/news_story.cfm?textnewsid=1816

 

[jillian]

Remember that the NYT has been pro-leftist for a long time with less than stellar ethics when it comes to presenting news stories, and the Huffington Post is a pure leftwing media darling. Also in leftwing wacko vernacular--the language utilized by the Democrats--a decrease in an increase is called a budget cut plus they will not acknowledge that shfting funding from a little utilized program to a program where there is more need is also labeled a 'cut' by the Democrats.

So here's some real numbers to chew on.


http://www.factcheck.org/print_funding_for_veterans_up_27_but_democrats.html

http://www.house.gov/pryce/06%20releases/092506_veterans_accomplishments.htm

http://www.militaryconnections.com/news_story.cfm?textnewsid=1816

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Try picking numbers that aren't three to four years old to compare with current numbers. That Factcheck article is old hat.

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.

The Factcheck article does have some age on it but it is constructive in illustrating how these things get distorted and misrepresented in partisan rhetoric, especially the more hateful variety.

The next piece, however, does have a link at the bottom that brings us up to more current times.

Here's another link in which the numbers are laid out so clearly, only a numbnut could misinterpret them:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/veterans.html

 

[jillian]

The Factcheck article does have some age on it but it is constructive in illustrating how these things get distorted and misrepresented in partisan rhetoric, especially the more hateful variety.

The next piece, however, does have a link at the bottom that brings us up to more current times.

Here's another link in which the numbers are laid out so clearly, only a numbnut could misinterpret them:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/veterans.html

Things get distorted on both sides of the fence, as factcheck recently noted after the republican debates.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/florida_fandango.html

http://www.factcheck.org/mitt_and_rudys_cherry_orchard.html

Once again, anything that comes from the whitehouse press machine isn't relevant to me. Though I do appreciate your effort in getting more recent numbers.

 

[Gunny]

My roommates and I were talking about this yesterday. I think it's horrible that people always want to give a parade and then forget about the veterans. We should be doing everything we can to make sure veterans can get jobs. In this country, 25% of ALL homeless people are veterans. This atrocity should never occur in a country supposedly as great as the United States of America.

What number of that 25% are out of the militiary for the same reason? They couldn't hold that job either?

A lot of people go straight from high school into the military, do a hitch, then get out, picking up where they left off going nowhere 3-4 years previous. But because of that 4 years, they're not just "homeless" or unemployed, they're poor misbegotten vets whose country has abandoned them?

I ain't buying it.

 

[Gunny]

How about not re-electing a President who slashed Veterans benefits during a war time and has overseen the most stingy war department in terms of post-conflict assistance. Oh wait, no republicans voted him back into office in 2004. CONGRATS!

Try again. No veteran's benefits were slashed. That's nothing but spin. Additional benefits were not granted. Not the same things. A mere technicality to you spinners.

 

[Foxfyre]

Things get distorted on both sides of the fence, as factcheck recently noted after the republican debates.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/florida_fandango.html

http://www.factcheck.org/mitt_and_rudys_cherry_orchard.html

Once again, anything that comes from the whitehouse press machine isn't relevant to me. Though I do appreciate your effort in getting more recent numbers.

We were not talking about Republican debates. We were talking about unfounded, unsupported, dishonest misrepresentations of, and flat out lies re Bush cutting veterans benefits. I swear some people have no attention span at all.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

We were not talking about Republican debates. We were talking about unfounded, unsupported, dishonest misrepresentations of, and flat out lies re Bush cutting veterans benefits. I swear some people have no attention span at all.

What source WOULD you believe that told you Bush had vetoed benefit packages for Veterans. I mean my god, I understand that the New York Times has a left leaning slant, but you are telling me they fabricated legislation and fabricated that Bush vetoed it? Are you arguing they fabricated reductions in the budget? That stuff is public record. Are you telling me slogged through these records yourself? Good god man.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What source WOULD you believe that told you Bush had vetoed benefit packages for Veterans. I mean my god, I understand that the New York Times has a left leaning slant, but you are telling me they fabricated legislation and fabricated that Bush vetoed it? Are you arguing they fabricated reductions in the budget? That stuff is public record. Are you telling me slogged through these records yourself? Good god man.

You made the statement he CUT benefits. Prove he cut them. Now your on about he did not approve NEW ones, totally different claim. Your initial statement is a bald face lie. You can not CUT a benefit that NEVER existed.

 

[Foxfyre]

What source WOULD you believe that told you Bush had vetoed benefit packages for Veterans. I mean my god, I understand that the New York Times has a left leaning slant, but you are telling me they fabricated legislation and fabricated that Bush vetoed it? Are you arguing they fabricated reductions in the budget? That stuff is public record. Are you telling me slogged through these records yourself? Good god man.

I would believe any credible source showing that the benefits had been cut as you claim. Vetoing a spending package is not cutting benefits. Shifting money from one underutilized program to one that needs it more is not cutting benefits. Reducing the amount allocated to veteran's benefits is cutting benefits. Bush has not done that.

Show me any credible source that does not show significant increases in Veteran's benefits every year of the Bush administration, or one that shows that benefits have not increased significantly more overall under Bush than they did under the previous admnistration. (Hint: Don't waste your time because you won't be able to do it.)

 

[jillian]

We were not talking about Republican debates. We were talking about unfounded, unsupported, dishonest misrepresentations of, and flat out lies re Bush cutting veterans benefits. I swear some people have no attention span at all.

I was responding to *your* point about political distortion by pointing out it occurs on both sides of the aisle.

As for the rest of your point, a years old article isn't particularly relevant, which is why you changed *your* point from the specific to the general one above.

Seems one of us knows how to follow threads of conversation... and it isn't you. I know how difficult it must be for you to have to justify seven years of failed policies and incompetence. Don't worry, only 432 days more.

I am still waiting for you to respond on another thread, however, about how a balanced court with 4 on each side and a swing vote in the middle was somehow a "leftwing" court.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I was responding to *your* point about political distortion by pointing out it occurs on both sides of the aisle.

As for the rest of your point, a years old article isn't particularly relevant, which is why you changed *your* point from the specific to the general one above.

Seems one of us knows how to follow threads of conversation... and it isn't you. I know how difficult it must be for you to have to justify seven years of failed policies and incompetence. Don't worry, only 432 days more.

I am still waiting for you to respond on another thread, however, about how a balanced court with 4 on each side and a swing vote in the middle was somehow a "leftwing" court.

Any claim Bush CUT funding to the VA is an absolute LIE. Support the claim or butt the hell out.

 

[jillian]

Any claim Bush CUT funding to the VA is an absolute LIE. Support the claim or butt the hell out.

Do piss up a rope.... k?

I have every right to call a right wing propagandist what she is. If George Bush told either of you the sky was down and the earth was flat, you'd say... oh, ok. I guess he wants to keep us safe by not letting us fall off the earth and into the sky.

 

[ReillyT]

I would believe any credible source showing that the benefits had been cut as you claim. Vetoing a spending package is not cutting benefits. Shifting money from one underutilized program to one that needs it more is not cutting benefits. Reducing the amount allocated to veteran's benefits is cutting benefits. Bush has not done that.

Show me any credible source that does not show significant increases in Veteran's benefits every year of the Bush administration, or one that shows that benefits have not increased significantly more overall under Bush than they did under the previous admnistration. (Hint: Don't waste your time because you won't be able to do it.)

I have no idea whether Bush cut VA benefits, but there is another way to demonstrate that the benefit to veterans has been cut, without actually having a cut in benefits per se. If the expenses associated with care of wounded soldiers (or benefits to family members of killed soldiers) have skyrocketed and the budget hasn't also increased accordingly, then the benefits per veteran may decline even if the budget stays the same. Like I said, I don't know and I don't know where you would get this information, but it is something to consider (I think).

 

[jillian]

oh...and on the thread topic

Like everything else he does, Bush is leaving the problems for his successors to clean up after him...

After a $4 billion increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head, even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly -- by more than 10 percent in many years. White House budget documents assume that the veterans' medical services budget -- up 83 percent since Bush took office and winning a big increase in Bush's proposed 2008 budget -- can absorb a 2 percent cut the following year and remain essentially frozen for three years in a row after that.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends, sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better, critics say.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget, "or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

Edwards said that a more realistic estimate of veterans costs is $16 billion higher than the Bush estimate for 2012.

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php...FRXl5NzA3Njc3OSZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTI=

 

[RetiredGySgt]

oh...and on the thread topic

Like everything else he does, Bush is leaving the problems for his successors to clean up after him...



http://www.northjersey.com/page.php...FRXl5NzA3Njc3OSZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTI=

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