Republicans slashing veteran's benefits.

[Ferocious]

Republican congressmen wanted a much bigger slash but settle for Bush's more modest cut.

Bush gets his way.

reminds me of the Reagan era.....beef up the military....but slash the benefits for those who served before.

 

[ElFenix]

something has to get slashed when you're in a budget crunch. you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Great send them to war, then cut their benefits :| Why not cut the benefit's and pay of Congressmen/women?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
Great send them to war, then cut their benefits :| Why not cut the benefit's and pay of Congressmen/women?

do it and see how many non-wealthy people even bother running for congress

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
Great send them to war, then cut their benefits :| Why not cut the benefit's and pay of Congressmen/women?

do it and see how many non-wealthy people even bother running for congress

That's my point

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
Great send them to war, then cut their benefits :| Why not cut the benefit's and pay of Congressmen/women?

So not only do they get to fight for the Iraqis, they can pay for it too.

 

[T2T III]

The healthcare benefit changes are no different than those of us in the civilian world are facing. Each year, my co-payments for prescriptions go up. Also, my premiums raise every year. I don't think imposing a $250 deductable to certain vets is being unrealistic. Plus, the only people who will be affected are vets who have higher incomes or officers. Your typical retired NCO only makes about $15K in retirement income each year - well under the income ceilings for the benefit changes. However, the part that does worry me is that once these cuts are put in place, what's going to stop them from making additional cuts?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
Great send them to war, then cut their benefits :| Why not cut the benefit's and pay of Congressmen/women?

do it and see how many non-wealthy people even bother running for congress

I can't see it being any worse than it already is.

 

[Brutuskend]

Well as a Vet. this piss's me off to no end.

You sign up and are promissed bennies, then when it suits them they take them away.

It like signing up and then when a war starts you say "Oh well I just was in for the school help, I didn't really WANNA risk my LIFE!"

FVCK those fat cat pricks!

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
Great send them to war, then cut their benefits :| Why not cut the benefit's and pay of Congressmen/women?

do it and see how many non-wealthy people even bother running for congress

Not like they don't make enough off all the bribes

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Well as a Vet. this piss's me off to no end.

You sign up and are promissed bennies, then when it suits them they take them away.

It like signing up and then when a war starts you say "Oh well I just was in for the school help, I didn't really WANNA risk my LIFE!"

FVCK those fat cat pricks!

But, where does it say that 100% of medical care will be provided ... for life?? I've been in the military also. Lots of people verbally talked about how good the retirement benefits were. However, I could never find anything written that promised everything that was spoken.

 

[Ameesh]

i wonder where ausm and AZGamer and all the other good republicans on this board are?

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Well as a Vet. this piss's me off to no end.

You sign up and are promissed bennies, then when it suits them they take them away.

It like signing up and then when a war starts you say "Oh well I just was in for the school help, I didn't really WANNA risk my LIFE!"

FVCK those fat cat pricks!

But, where does it say that 100% of medical care will be provided ... for life?? I've been in the military also. Lots of people verbally talked about how good the retirement benefits were. However, I could never find anything written that promised everything that was spoken.

Maybe they don't write it down so it's easier to take it away when they feel they "Need to"

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
Great send them to war, then cut their benefits :| Why not cut the benefit's and pay of Congressmen/women?

do it and see how many non-wealthy people even bother running for congress

Not like they don't make enough off all the bribes

i'm not talking about just the people in congress, i'm talking about everyone who ever made a serious run at congress. it takes a lot of money to have 2 residences and travel back and forth between them.

 

[BruinEd03]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Republican congressmen wanted a much bigger slash but settle for Bush's more modest cut.

Bush gets his way.

reminds me of the Reagan era.....beef up the military....but slash the benefits for those who served before.

I really don't support this. These guys risk their lives so that we can have freedom. We can't just train them to be fighting machines without offering them support afterwards. I think this is a betrayal to our troops.

-Ed

 

[Staples]

Don't you know screwing working class people is very patriotic? I mean doesn't Bush act like he is the truest American

 

[Amused]

These changes only affect "(those who have an income of $38,100 or more and no service-related disability)."

In other words, veterans who are fully able to support themselves.

This is not disabled veterans, or 20 year retired folks we're talking about here, folks.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a veteran and despise the way disabled veterans are treated. This, however, does NOT affect disabled veterans in any way, shape or form.

Folks, you are being sold a bill of goods from a party that couldn't give two sh!ts about veterans, except when it's politically advantageous.

 

[Dedpuhl]

Originally posted by: Amused
These changes only affect "(those who have an income of $38,100 or more and no service-related disability)."

In other words, veterans who are fully able to support themselves.

This is not disabled veterans, or 20 year retired folks we're talking about here, folks.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a veteran and despise the way disabled veterans are treated. This, however, does NOT affect disabled veterans in any way, shape or form.

Folks, you are being sold a bill of goods from a party that couldn't give two sh!ts about veterans, except when it's politically advantageous.

It's about time some common sense was introduced into this thread.

I'm waiting for a response from my stepdad (disabled vietnam vet) to see what he thinks about this...

 

[conjur]

Bush actually proposed a record fiscal year for the VA for 2004

 

[BDawg]

My wife is a bush voting republican who works for the VA. She's pissed about the proposed (now passed) VA cuts.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Vet benefits will continue to shrink for several reasons:

1.) It too expensive to provide even the current level of crappy care provided, the budget can't withstand it.
2.) The number of vets applying for benefits are skyrocketing, they're older, laid off, sicker, have lost other health insurance coverage.
3.) The number of vets voting has steadily decreased, they were once a powerful block of votes, now they don't matter as much.


The stories I could tell...., damn employment contract...

 

[AndrewR]

Did you notice the part about the vets NOT HAVING A SERVICE RELATED DISABILITY?

This IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER impacts those who were injured in the line of duty so someone like the aforementioned disabled Vietnam vet will see no changes at all.

This is an extremely narrow and focused change. Personally, when I retire, I don't expect free medical care for the rest of my life. Quite honestly, I'll look forward to being able to see a civilian doctor again, after the horror stories I've heard and seen and the substandard care my wife has received.

If you were promised something, and it's not fulfilled, then you have a gripe. Otherwise, there's nothing to complain about. I can't say one way or the other whether or not lifetime medical care was ever promised so that's all I can address.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

My wife is a bush voting republican who works for the VA. She's pissed about the proposed (now passed) VA cuts.

Unlike most of the board, you and your wife have a clue about how the system works. VA hospitals are staffed in large part by the federal government. So if you make less than 38K or happen to have a qualifying injury/illness who do you think is going to take care of you if the VA is understaffed and underfunded?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

My wife is a bush voting republican who works for the VA. She's pissed about the proposed (now passed) VA cuts.

Unlike most of the board, you and your wife have a clue about how the system works. VA hospitals are staffed in large part by the federal government. So if you make less than 38K or happen to have a qualifying injury/illness who do you think is going to take care of you if the VA is understaffed and underfunded?

How is cutting off non-disabled people who make more than 38K going to effect the level of service or funding in VA hospitals? If anything, it will free up staff and resources for existing patients who DO have disabilities and/or make less than 38K.

You know, it's funny, but I can't recall the last time the Dems gave two sh!ts about veterans benefits. Only when they can use it to bludgeon the opposition, do I see it become an issue for them.

As a veteran myself, I do tend to keep up with these things, ya know.

 

[gistech1978]

not suprising considering how our president was AWOL from the alabama natl guard during the vietnam war.
and not suprising that out of our 500+ legislators only 1 of them has a child serving in the armed forces.
the hypocrisy of our govt and its leadership knows no bounds.
im not just talkin about reps either, its both.