Veterans groups blast proposed tea party cuts

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
One area of Veteran affairs that I feel should be cut is burials in National Cemeteries.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think the cemeteries are a huge chunk of the pie, and I don't begrudge them that benefit.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Oh and many of those getting disability benefits are not ones that lost limbs, have a dozen pins in their back, etc... its the ones that have a sore back, hay fever, etc... I also use to believe that 30%+ disability were hurt troops serving the US. When in fact the majority have some of the most nancy BS concerns like those I listed. Again, I see the forms I know what % they have and why, most are BS and block honest troops and others from jobs and benifits.

You should read up on the case of Samuels v. West (11 Vet. App. 433) - you'd love that one. Here's a summary:

Veteran appealed from Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) decision denying service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Court of Veterans Appeals, Nebeker, C.J., held that claim was not well grounded where the alleged stressor was combat experience in Vietnam, but the record was absolutely clear that the veteran saw had no service in Vietnam, much less saw combat in that country

It takes some gall to claim benefits due to combat stress in Vietnam when you never left the U.S.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
LOL, a lot of them pay less as a percentage of taxes than i do. Top 400 taxpayers in 2007 had an effective tax rate of 16%

Yes, raise their fucking taxes.

And that is due to what? Rather than playing the class warfare game it would make more sense to toss out the entire tax code and replace it with one that does nothing but raise revenue for govenment services rather than 100,000 pages of loopholes and nonsense to encourage or prevent some particular economic activity, bestow a benefit to some treasured constituency while punishing their competitors and all the myriad crap that is in our current tax system.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
And that is due to what? Rather than playing the class warfare game it would make more sense to toss out the entire tax code and replace it with one that does nothing but raise revenue for govenment services rather than 100,000 pages of loopholes and nonsense to encourage or prevent some particular economic activity, bestow a benefit to some treasured constituency while punishing their competitors and all the myriad crap that is in our current tax system.

That makes far too much sense to ever survive the legislative process.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
First off, Marines is always capitalized.

Secondly, you offered only one benefit. pcgeek11 asked for a list. It seems you do not know what you are talking about, so do not make comments like you did until you do.

So you are of the opinion that despite doubling military expenditures in the past decade nothing should be cut? That is absurd.

I only mentioned that some perks are excessive in my first post. I don't have a list, but I can assure you the military is as bloated as the rest of the government when it comes to spending money, certainly with the near blank check they have had recently. I'm sure signup bonuses can be trimmed, or perhaps look into reducing double dip retirements. Benefits don't have to be strictly canned in many cases, just reduced.

Having a blanket attitude of "you aren't military so you can't comment on it" is silly. Only those who are in a specific group can be consulted for cuts? Is that how it should work? We should only ask federal employees about their pensions and payscales and nobody else? We should only ask teachers about the education system? We should only ask welfare recipients if they want cuts? Do you not see how that attitude simply won't work when trying to make cuts?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Let's start by doing away with Tax cuts for the top 1%
if you aren't a millionaire, you need to shut the hell up because you don't have a clue :mad:

er, but yeah. I agree. I was not in favor of the Bush tax cut extensions even for the middle class and recognize that all options need to be on the table.

it was ridiculous when the budget commission report came back and it was instantly a non-starter because it had the audacity to mention social security.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
And that is due to what? Rather than playing the class warfare game it would make more sense to toss out the entire tax code and replace it with one that does nothing but raise revenue for govenment services rather than 100,000 pages of loopholes and nonsense to encourage or prevent some particular economic activity, bestow a benefit to some treasured constituency while punishing their competitors and all the myriad crap that is in our current tax system.

LOL, you do realize the biggest reason those rich people pay 16% as an effective tax rate is because the capital gains tax rate is cut and not 100K pages of loopholes, right?
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
There's room for veterans' benefits to be cut. For example, if you're a veteran and you pass away your outstanding mortgage is paid off by the government and your family takes the property outright. That is not necessary.

I doubt anyone really wants to put disabled vets on the street, but there needs to be more distinction made between combat veterans (who are more and more rare these days) and perks for former helicopter mechanics.

"1.Loss or loss of use of both legs.
2.Blindness in both eyes plus the loss or loss of use of one leg.
3.Loss or loss of use of one leg with residuals of organic disease or injury which affects balance or propulsion.
4.Loss or loss of use of one leg together with the loss or loss of use of one upper extremity which affects balance or propulsion"


Those are the conditions to qualify for VMLI, which i guess is what you want to cut ?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Let's start by doing away with Tax cuts for the top 1%

Lets pretend that you waived your magic wand and that happened and lets also round up on the revenue it will generate.

So, we have a $1.5ishT deficit and you just raised $100B and just for shits and giggles lets say you can get another $100B from closing loopholes.

$1.3T or so to go, whats your next step?
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Lets pretend that you waived your magic wand and that happened and lets also round up on the revenue it will generate.

So, we have a $1.5ishT deficit and you just raised $100B and just for shits and giggles lets say you can get another $100B from closing loopholes.

$1.3T or so to go, whats your next step?


Military and SS needs major cuts as well.

Anything over 8% should start major cuts now.

Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
LOL, you do realize the biggest reason those rich people pay 16% as an effective tax rate is because the capital gains tax rate is cut and not 100K pages of loopholes, right?

And what is treating income from a captial gain differently than income from any other source but a loophole? If you treat all income equally no matter from what source your magic "rich" loophole suddenly disappears.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,224
5,800
126
When it comes to the Military Pay and Benefits, how do you put a Price on something when the person has put their very existence on the line? It's not even that though, they have also sacrificed various Freedoms in joining the Military. If they are ordered to Antarctica, that's where they go, leave their Family/Friends behind, be there as long as someone else decides, and it's not just them who are affected as their Spouse/Children also pay the price of it as well.

If an attempt was made to Pay in Wages alone, surely such sacrifice would be Worth $millions and not the pittance they receive. All the side Benefits may seem excessive, but even if someone took advantage of all of them, the Cost would still not equal the true Price their sacrifice was worth. IMO.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Lets pretend that you waived your magic wand and that happened and lets also round up on the revenue it will generate.

So, we have a $1.5ishT deficit and you just raised $100B and just for shits and giggles lets say you can get another $100B from closing loopholes.

$1.3T or so to go, whats your next step?

the goal isn't to cut the deficit in one year. Given your figure of $200b from revenues, if we match that with cuts that goes a long way over time.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
When it comes to the Military Pay and Benefits, how do you put a Price on something when the person has put their very existence on the line? It's not even that though, they have also sacrificed various Freedoms in joining the Military. If they are ordered to Antarctica, that's where they go, leave their Family/Friends behind, be there as long as someone else decides, and it's not just them who are affected as their Spouse/Children also pay the price of it as well.

If an attempt was made to Pay in Wages alone, surely such sacrifice would be Worth $millions and not the pittance they receive. All the side Benefits may seem excessive, but even if someone took advantage of all of them, the Cost would still not equal the true Price their sacrifice was worth. IMO.
everything has a price tag. couldn't you make the exact same argument about firemen and policemen?

their benefits could be 100% fine and no cuts may be needed, even in terms of overhead or administrative waste. that still doesn't mean that potential cuts shouldn't at least be looked for or considered on their merits.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
Military and SS needs major cuts as well.

Anything over 8% should start major cuts now.

Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg

SS doesn't need major cuts, up until last year it was actually taking in more money than it was sending out. It does need some small adjustments to the payin rate/the payout rate or the age which it starts paying out. Any one of those three, or a combination of them will keep it solvent. There does need to be a hard rule against using excess for other government expenditures. Lockbox indeed, Al Gore.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,898
7,426
136
Cutting veteran's benefits should be way down on the priority list where military affairs are concerned.

One of the main reasons why many of the benefits are offered is for recruiting purposes. Cut benefits and you threaten the All Volunteer Armed Services. Manpower shortfalls still exist, and anything you take away from the benefits package will definetly hurt recruiting and retention, no two ways about it.

If cuts in defense spending need to be made, then take it out of the slice that provides for all that corporate welfare that gets handed out by the untold $billions$ no questions asked first, instead of taking benefits that most veterans can't do without. There's much more fat that can be trimmed there than from our veterans. And yes, I am biased as I'm military retired myself, but the facts stand on their own.

Why does Bachmann not even mention making cuts from the white collared side of the Defense Dept. where the bulk of the largesse/wasted $$$ is found rather than from the people who are where the rubber hits the road?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Cutting veteran's benefits should be way down on the priority list where military affairs are concerned.

One of the main reasons why many of the benefits are offered is for recruiting purposes. Cut benefits and you threaten the All Volunteer Armed Services. Manpower shortfalls still exist, and anything you take away from the benefits package will definetly hurt recruiting and retention, no two ways about it.

If cuts in defense spending need to be made, then take it out of the slice that provides for all that corporate welfare that gets handed out by the untold $billions$ no questions asked first, instead of taking benefits that most veterans can't do without. There's much more fat that can be trimmed there than from our veterans. And yes, I am biased as I'm military retired myself, but the facts stand on their own.

Why does Bachmann not even mention making cuts from the white collared side of the Defense Dept. where the bulk of the largesse/wasted $$$ is found rather than from the people who are where the rubber hits the road?

It takes a LOT of things to happen up the chain of command to get a soldier to shoot one bullet.

If you're going to cut, you can cut the cost of the bullet for a pence or go up the chain for a million.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,898
7,426
136
It takes a LOT of things to happen up the chain of command to get a soldier to shoot one bullet.

If you're going to cut, you can cut the cost of the bullet for a pence or go up the chain for a million.


Well put. Thanks for the insight that I did not consider. :thumbsup: