Why do the Republicans hate our troops?

[techs]

For many years the Republican party proclaimed wildly their support for our troops.
And they actually did act in providing better benefits, pay etc.
Yet, since the Bushies and the Neo-Con Republicans took over it has turned around 180 degrees.
From the Republicans fighting every benefit proposed for our troops, to the lack of support by not expanding the Armed Forces and putting huge strain on military famiiles, to the defeat of the recent attempt to increase college education benefits, the Republicans seem at war, well, with our own troops.
WTF is going on here?

 

[EagleKeeper]

When you have everything one is doing being criticized and being micromanaged; things are attempted to be done as quickly and cheaply as possible.

And the end result suffers, but the bean counters are happy.

 

[bamacre]

Perhaps so they can more often utilize Blackwater?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
Yet, since the Bushies and the Neo-Con Republicans took over it has turned around 180 degrees.
-snip-

Care to provide any proof?

(And *no*, opposition to free college after 3 years of service doesn't count. We even had those in military post here why it wasn't a good idea).

Link us up with some pre-existing benefits that the gov has stripped away or reduced since 2001.

Fern

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
Yet, since the Bushies and the Neo-Con Republicans took over it has turned around 180 degrees.
-snip-

Care to provide any proof?

(And *no*, opposition to free college after 3 years of service doesn't count. We even had those in military post here why it wasn't a good idea).

Link us up with some pre-existing benefits that the gov has stripped away or reduced since 2001.

Fern

But isn't it much easier just to make a blanket statement backed up by a plethora of platitudes?

 

[Grunt03]

I think it is even across the board on both sides. The only reason why we are receiving so much attention is the war, the election, and the current adminstartion has managed to put the country into a position that their will be no easy exit from.

Just my 2 cents worth...........

 

[nick1985]

Sweet thread title...

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: techs
For many years the Republican party proclaimed wildly their support for our troops.
And they actually did act in providing better benefits, pay etc.
Yet, since the Bushies and the Neo-Con Republicans took over it has turned around 180 degrees.
From the Republicans fighting every benefit proposed for our troops, to the lack of support by not expanding the Armed Forces and putting huge strain on military famiiles, to the defeat of the recent attempt to increase college education benefits, the Republicans seem at war, well, with our own troops.
WTF is going on here?

Just for fun, think about this. If you wanted to destroy a nation, a nation that had a real strong military... how would you do it? Send them overseas, deplete their morale and effectiveness leaving the nation unprotected. This would play into the Liberal Ideal of One world without boarders. You see both sides in this work toward the same end.

So why do the Repubs hate our military? Why do the Democrats hate our republic? Because they are the same thing hell bent on world domination...muhhhauahaha

That was fun huh?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
Yet, since the Bushies and the Neo-Con Republicans took over it has turned around 180 degrees.
-snip-

Care to provide any proof?

(And *no*, opposition to free college after 3 years of service doesn't count. We even had those in military post here why it wasn't a good idea).

Link us up with some pre-existing benefits that the gov has stripped away or reduced since 2001.

Fern

To be fair to him he qualified his statement by explaining what he meant, specifically that they had opposed further expansion of benefits to our troops. Oh, and for the record I'm a guy who was in the military who thinks the new GI bill is an incredibly good idea. But that's not the important part here.

I just feel bad for the poor troops. It seems like EVERYONE hates them. The Democrats hate the troops for not wanting to finish the war, the Republicans hate the troops for wanting to continue the war, the Democrats hate the troops by not wanting to fund the military more, the Republicans hate the troops for not wanting to expand GI bill benefits.

Poor guys can't catch a break. I wonder why everyone seems so determined to hate them?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
Yet, since the Bushies and the Neo-Con Republicans took over it has turned around 180 degrees.
-snip-

Care to provide any proof?

(And *no*, opposition to free college after 3 years of service doesn't count. We even had those in military post here why it wasn't a good idea).

Link us up with some pre-existing benefits that the gov has stripped away or reduced since 2001.

Fern

To be fair to him he qualified his statement by explaining what he meant, specifically that they had opposed further expansion of benefits to our troops.

Yes.

However I'm asking what's been taken away?

I suppose it reflects peoples' different mindset. See, he says the gov hates the military because they won't GIVE MORE benefits. The gov just needs to give give give to prove it supports YOU.

OTOH, I don't view the gov as a *sugar daddy*. IMO, the "hate" ain't about giving more, but about taking away. If nothings been taken away, you ain't been hated on.

Our national financial situation sucks. IMO, we don't need to be in any *give mode*.

Fern

 

[Pabster]

YATTT. <Yawn>

 

[lupi]

Chance if this thread was the same except Obama replaced repubs in the title it wouldn't have been locked already.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
Yet, since the Bushies and the Neo-Con Republicans took over it has turned around 180 degrees.
-snip-

Care to provide any proof?

(And *no*, opposition to free college after 3 years of service doesn't count. We even had those in military post here why it wasn't a good idea).

Link us up with some pre-existing benefits that the gov has stripped away or reduced since 2001.

Fern

To be fair to him he qualified his statement by explaining what he meant, specifically that they had opposed further expansion of benefits to our troops.

Yes.

However I'm asking what's been taken away?

I suppose it reflects peoples' different mindset. See, he says the gov hates the military because they won't GIVE MORE benefits. The gov just needs to give give give to prove it supports YOU.

OTOH, I don't view the gov as a *sugar daddy*. IMO, the "hate" ain't about giving more, but about taking away. If nothings been taken away, you ain't been hated on.

Our national financial situation sucks. IMO, we don't need to be in any *give mode*.

Fern

Maybe you should look at it another way. When the GI bill was originally introduced it gave enough money for a veteran to afford a 4 year education at a moderately priced university. Today it gives a tiny fraction of that amount. A more accurate way of looking at the renewed GI bill would be to say that it restores it to the form that it was originally intended to be.

So is the government GIVING MORE, or merely reversing a 50 year trend of removing benefits?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: lupi
Chance if this thread was the same except Obama replaced repubs in the title it wouldn't have been locked already.

Obama, Mertha & the rest of the Demorrhoids all support our troops.... hate our country but support our troops.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
Yet, since the Bushies and the Neo-Con Republicans took over it has turned around 180 degrees.
-snip-

Care to provide any proof?

(And *no*, opposition to free college after 3 years of service doesn't count. We even had those in military post here why it wasn't a good idea).

Link us up with some pre-existing benefits that the gov has stripped away or reduced since 2001.

Fern

To be fair to him he qualified his statement by explaining what he meant, specifically that they had opposed further expansion of benefits to our troops.

The current benefits are much more than what existed after the close of Nam.

There is a massive gap of 20+ years that the benefits were close to nill in comparison.

People want to give as long as it is not from their wallet.

I am not saying that basic care nor what was promised/commited to should be denied, however, to demand more afterwards becomes a different story. Get the house in order first then evaluate.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: eskimospy

To be fair to him he qualified his statement by explaining what he meant, specifically that they had opposed further expansion of benefits to our troops.

The current benefits are much more than what existed after the close of Nam.

There is a massive gap of 20+ years that the benefits were close to nill in comparison.

People want to give as long as it is not from their wallet.

I am not saying that basic care nor what was promised/commited to should be denied, however, to demand more afterwards becomes a different story. Get the house in order first then evaluate.

And they are much less than existed when the GI bill was originally created.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Maybe you should look at it another way. When the GI bill was originally introduced it gave enough money for a veteran to afford a 4 year education at a moderately priced university. Today it gives a tiny fraction of that amount. A more accurate way of looking at the renewed GI bill would be to say that it restores it to the form that it was originally intended to be.

So is the government GIVING MORE, or merely reversing a 50 year trend of removing benefits?

The GI Bill started in 1944. We didn't have a professional military, and circumstances were far different than now.

By your own admission those in the military are very well compensated. I'd suggest that taking into account the entire *package* of benefits, today's military are better than those of old.

To point out any indivdual aspect of today's package, without looking at the totality, and then complain is disengenous.

Fern

History of the GI Bill

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Maybe you should look at it another way. When the GI bill was originally introduced it gave enough money for a veteran to afford a 4 year education at a moderately priced university. Today it gives a tiny fraction of that amount. A more accurate way of looking at the renewed GI bill would be to say that it restores it to the form that it was originally intended to be.

So is the government GIVING MORE, or merely reversing a 50 year trend of removing benefits?

The GI Bill started in 1944. We didn't have a professional military, and circumstances were far different than now.

By your own admission those in the military are very well compensated. I'd suggest that taking into account the entire *package* of benefits, today's military are better than those of old.

To point out any indivdual aspect of today's package, without looking at the totality, and then complain is disengenous.

Fern

History of the GI Bill

Maybe I didn't explain what I value about the GI Bill. While people are in the military yes, they are exceedingly well compensated for their relative education and experience level. That doesn't have much to do with the GI Bill though, because unless you're an idiot and feel like wasting your benefits you wait to use the GI Bill until after you're out.

The purpose of the GI Bill has always been to reintegrate people getting out of the service back into society though, and in its current form it does not do so successfully. I have a friend who got out of the military about 2 years back and has been going to school using the GI Bill and working, he just told me the other day he is going to have to stop going to school because he's simply going into too much debt.

The Congress created the GI Bill because they thought it was valuable to reintegrate veterans into society better then had been done up to that point. My argument is that the GI Bill no longer effectively does this.

Also, my original post was a joke.