Republicans slashing veteran's benefits.

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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.

If you're going to spew propaganda mindlessly, at least get it right. Only one senator has a child serving as an ENLISTED (not an officer) in the military.

Many in our government are veterans. I see no hypocrisy here, as veterans with no disabilities and making far above the poverty line have no business expecting free medical care. Were they cutting benefits to those with service connected disabilities, I'd agree with you.

It has always been my position that the VA should only exist to care for those with disabilities and folks who have retired after a minimum number of years in the service.

 

[Pliablemoose]

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?

Muffled scream as Pliablemoose tries to bite through gag & go into rant mode...

 

[Dedpuhl]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

If you're going to spew propaganda mindlessly, at least get it right. Only one senator has an child serving as an ENLISTED (not an officer) in the military.

Many in our government are veterans. I see no hypocrisy here, as veterans with no disabilities and making far above the poverty line have no business expecting free medical care. Were they cutting benefits to those with service connected disabilities, I'd agree with you.

It has always been my position that the VA should only exist to care for those with disabilities and folks who have retired after a minimum number of years in the service.

....but...but it is the democrat's way of life to mooch off the gov't...self-reliance is sooooo republican :disgust:



[edit] BTW, I am not a republican

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Dedpuhl

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

If you're going to spew propaganda mindlessly, at least get it right. Only one senator has an child serving as an ENLISTED (not an officer) in the military.

Many in our government are veterans. I see no hypocrisy here, as veterans with no disabilities and making far above the poverty line have no business expecting free medical care. Were they cutting benefits to those with service connected disabilities, I'd agree with you.

It has always been my position that the VA should only exist to care for those with disabilities and folks who have retired after a minimum number of years in the service.

....but...but it is the democrat's way of life to mooch off the gov't...self-reliance is sooooo republican :disgust:

Or libertarian.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Dedpuhl

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

If you're going to spew propaganda mindlessly, at least get it right. Only one senator has an child serving as an ENLISTED (not an officer) in the military.

Many in our government are veterans. I see no hypocrisy here, as veterans with no disabilities and making far above the poverty line have no business expecting free medical care. Were they cutting benefits to those with service connected disabilities, I'd agree with you.

It has always been my position that the VA should only exist to care for those with disabilities and folks who have retired after a minimum number of years in the service.

....but...but it is the democrat's way of life to mooch off the gov't...self-reliance is sooooo republican :disgust:

Or at least that's what they'd like you too believe.

 

[KK]

I heard about this couple of weeks ago. The republican that was talking about it was saying that it wasn't actually a cut but a smaller increase than what was wanted by others. For example, you have 8 billion this year and proposed to double it next year(16 billion), but you only increase by 50% up to 12 million. Some would say that this is a cut by 4 billion others say it's an increase of 4 billion. This is why no one should trust anything coming out of the mouth of any politician. I'd like to see the actual proposal and not something written by the "news" media, and base my conclusions on that.

KK

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: KK
I heard about this couple of weeks ago. The republican that was talking about it was saying that it wasn't actually a cut but a smaller increase than what was wanted by others. For example, you have 8 billion this year and proposed to double it next year(16 billion), but you only increase by 50% up to 12 million. Some would say that this is a cut by 4 billion others say it's an increase of 4 billion. This is why no one should trust anything coming out of the mouth of any politician. I'd like to see the actual proposal and not something written by the "news" media, and base my conclusions on that.

KK

That figues. It wouldn't be the first time the Dems label a reduction in increased funding as a "slash."

 

[YingYang]

After I got out of the Nav, I was working as a temp and didn't have medical insurance and when I had pneumonia back then I had to go to a VA hospital. It literally took me all day to wait in line to get an X-ray and a doctors exam. I couldn't believe how understaffed they were about 10 years ago. If they make the cuts that they are proposing to do, it won't improve the services that they do provide but it certainly will piss off a lot of veterans like myself even though I probably won't be using a VA hospital since I pay a lot for my health insurance through my employer.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Are they actual cuts, or are they simply not increasing spending like most "cuts"????

Edit: Just read confirmation of that above.

More democratic B.S. There is no cut, just not as much of an increase as originally planned.

Spending is actually increased.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

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

That's not what Keynes said.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KK
I heard about this couple of weeks ago. The republican that was talking about it was saying that it wasn't actually a cut but a smaller increase than what was wanted by others. For example, you have 8 billion this year and proposed to double it next year(16 billion), but you only increase by 50% up to 12 million. Some would say that this is a cut by 4 billion others say it's an increase of 4 billion. This is why no one should trust anything coming out of the mouth of any politician. I'd like to see the actual proposal and not something written by the "news" media, and base my conclusions on that.

KK

That figues. It wouldn't be the first time the Dems label a reduction in increased funding as a "slash."

The Republicans have done the exact same thing in the past.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KK
I heard about this couple of weeks ago. The republican that was talking about it was saying that it wasn't actually a cut but a smaller increase than what was wanted by others. For example, you have 8 billion this year and proposed to double it next year(16 billion), but you only increase by 50% up to 12 million. Some would say that this is a cut by 4 billion others say it's an increase of 4 billion. This is why no one should trust anything coming out of the mouth of any politician. I'd like to see the actual proposal and not something written by the "news" media, and base my conclusions on that.

KK

That figues. It wouldn't be the first time the Dems label a reduction in increased funding as a "slash."

The Republicans have done the exact same thing in the past.

I'm not saying that they never have, but could you point me to an example?

KK

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KK
I heard about this couple of weeks ago. The republican that was talking about it was saying that it wasn't actually a cut but a smaller increase than what was wanted by others. For example, you have 8 billion this year and proposed to double it next year(16 billion), but you only increase by 50% up to 12 million. Some would say that this is a cut by 4 billion others say it's an increase of 4 billion. This is why no one should trust anything coming out of the mouth of any politician. I'd like to see the actual proposal and not something written by the "news" media, and base my conclusions on that.

KK

That figues. It wouldn't be the first time the Dems label a reduction in increased funding as a "slash."

The Republicans have done the exact same thing in the past.

I'm not saying that they never have, but could you point me to an example?

KK

I don't have a link off the top of my head, but it often happens with military spending.

 

[Ferocious]

heh I was scanning some of the many veterans message boards around.....and a lot of them are VERY angry.

Expletives abound.

Can't say I blame them either.

 

[Dedpuhl]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
heh I was scanning some of the many veterans message boards around.....and a lot of them are VERY angry.

Expletives abound.

Can't say I blame them either.

They are probably angry because they don't fully understand what is going on. It's already been said in the thread that spending will increase and it will not affect many of the veterans...