0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:12 pm
What in the world is up with Clark? He whispers that his grandfather was Jewish, as if it should be kept a secret....? Wonder what was going through his head when he did that? Clark has been his own worst enemy. Interesting to see how its playing out.

Sideline--I was looking through general news, and saw where Gore's son has a drinking problem and was busted for pot. I think he lost the right to drive in CN or NY. They dismissed Reckless Driving charges to Speeding... Guess all Tipper's MTV wars were for naught.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 07:22 pm
That's why I smoke dope with my cubs.....to teach them how not to get caught........
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 11:58 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Those 400+ dead American soldiers don't have any feelings at all. How does one explain why the family members of those soldiers still want GWBush as their president after he's given nothing but good sounding rhetoric and taken away their benefits? When I figure that one out, I think I'll be the wisest person on this planet.


Perhaps, c.i., its because the American Military, and their families, by preponderant proportion, are swayed by fact, not by misleading and/or downright incorrect Democrat Talking Points.

Quote:
Fact Sheet: in Support of America's Veterans

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 11, 2003

In Focus: Veterans


In Support of America's Veterans

Today's Presidential Action


Today, President Bush commemorated Veterans Day with a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery to honor the veterans of our Nation's Armed Forces.

America takes great pride in the achievements of the men and women who have worn the uniform of the United States. Americans owe veterans and those on the front lines of freedom a great debt of gratitude. They have removed threats to America and our friends throughout our Nation's history. We mourn every American who has died in the line of duty.

Today, the President also signed into law two bills to support our veterans and their families.
H.R. 3365, the Military Family Tax Relief Act of 2003, provides tax relief and other benefits to members of the armed services and their families.
H.R. 1516, the National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003 establishes, within four years, six new national cemeteries in southeastern Pennsylvania; Birmingham, Alabama; Jacksonville, Florida; Bakersfield, California; Greenville/Columbia, South Carolina; and, Sarasota, Florida.

President Bush has proposed record levels of support for America's veterans. Since 2001, the President has increased VA healthcare funding by more than 30-percent, and the proposed FY 2004 budget is the largest annual discretionary increase for the Department of Veterans Affairs ever requested by a President.

Administration Actions in Support of America's Veterans

Veterans and military retirees have made tremendous sacrifices for our Nation, and President Bush believes America must honor its commitments to our veterans. Because of the President's leadership, the VA is more responsive to veteran needs, and has improved health care, medical treatment, and claims processing times. In recognition of the tremendous sacrifices veterans and their families make, last year the President also signed into law special benefits to existing military retirees who are Purple Heart recipients or were seriously injured under combat conditions, and he is pleased to see that Congress is acting this year to address the issue of concurrent receipt for military retirees in a fair and responsible manner.

Improving Access to Health Care for Veterans


President Bush has provided America's veterans with unprecedented medical care budget increases -- more in his first two years in office than in the period from 1995-2000. Since 2001, the President has increased VA health care funding by more than 30-percent.

The President's record requests have enabled VA to improve on its core medical mission to provide high-quality health care to veterans with service-related disabilities, with low incomes, and with special healthcare needs.

Under the President's leadership, VA will care for 1.4 million more veterans in 2004 than in 2000, and has opened 194 new community-based clinics to be more responsive to veterans' needs.

The Bush Administration took action last summer to provide medicine prescribed by private physicians to some veterans who had been waiting more than 30 days for an appointment.

The President's FY 2004 budget will enable VA to eliminate the waiting list by February 2004.

More Responsive to Veterans


Since 2001, the average time to process a disability claim has been reduced by 30 percent, and the inventory of disability claims has been reduced from a peak of 432,000 to 253,000. VA has also established special teams to focus on long-overdue cases and has already cut by half the number of cases pending for more than 6 months.

Under the Bush Administration, the Department of Defense and the VA have developed a proactive partnership to work together benefiting veterans, military beneficiaries, and taxpayers. The VA-DoD Joint Executive Council was formed to further improve quality and access for health care and to bring about a seamless transition for new veterans moving from military to civilian status.

Fulfilling our Nation's Promise


Some 1,800 veterans die every day. Most of these are World War II and Korea veterans. The President's budget supports fulfilling our Nation's promise to provide veterans with a dignified final resting place.
The families of veterans and military retirees have also made tremendous sacrifices. Surviving spouses, children, and some parents of veterans who are either killed in action or die of service-related causes may receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.
Dependents' educational assistance is available to spouses who have not remarried and children of veterans who are either killed in action or die of service-related disabilities.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 06:56 pm
Poll update: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

- In 5 of the last 7 polls Kerry has sunk to on or below "the Sharpton line"; in none of the last 4 polls did Kerry get more than 1% over Sharpton. He's become a bit player, nationally, it seems.

- More unexpectedly, Gephardt seems to be following him. In the very last poll, from Newsweek, Gephardt is down 5% to 5% - two percent below Sharpton. Statistical aberration, or some backlash about that perhaps all-too ferocious anti-Dean ad? In any case, in the three polls before that, Gephardt also failed to get more than 1% over Sharpton.

That leaves, in all of the last three polls, only Dean, Clark and Lieberman as the remaining major contenders (with Dean scoring twice the numbers of the other three). That wasn't what much anyone was expecting nine months ago, huh? ;-)

- In a head-to-head with Bush (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm), all three would do about equally badly. In the last Newsweek poll, Bush's lead has increased from 6-9% to 12-13%.

Mind you, there is a silver lining to that last bit. In the CNN/Gallup and NBC/WSJ polls from 3-5 days earlier, that had immediately followed Saddam's capture, Bush's lead on them had jumped from 12-15% to 21-25% (NBC/WSJ), and from 3-8% to 16-23% (CNN/Gallup), respectively. Huge jumps, that took Bush to 20+ points leads. If you look at the last Newsweek poll from that perspective, you could also take away from it that half of the "Saddam bonus" has already dissipated - in less than a week's time.

Still, there hasn't been a poll yet in which any of the Dem candidates was ahead of Bush ...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 07:01 pm
I guess we can find almost anything on what the Bush administration has done to Veteran's Benefits.
http://www.infostew.com/hot_topics/_topics/0000005b.htm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 07:04 pm
For some reason, I'd rather depend on the Washington Post than all the president's press secretary. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51794-2002Oct6&notFound=true
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 08:18 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
For some reason, I'd rather depend on the Washington Post than all the president's press secretary.


I'm sure that explains why you haven't read This:

Quote:
Concurrent receipt pay reality in Jan.
12/22/2003 - ARLINGTON, Va. (AFPN) -- Military retirees will begin receiving both retired pay and Veterans Affairs disability compensation as the disability offset is phased out.

Previously, the offset reduced the amount of the military retiree's pay by an amount equal to any disability payment received from the VA.

Legislation authorizing concurrent receipt of both forms of compensation was signed by President Bush on Nov. 24. The legislation will deliver billions to more than 200,000 disabled military retirees and takes effect Jan. 1.


or This:

Quote:
2004 Pay Raises Now Official

The recently signed 2004 National Defense Authorization Act includes an active duty pay increase of at least 3.7 percent to all military members. Although the average pay raise is 4.15 percent, active duty Warrant Officers and Enlisted personnel will be receiving a pay raise that ranges from 3.7% to 6.25% with the largest percentages going to enlisted servicemembers E-5 and above. Commissioned Officers on the other hand will receive a flat 3.7% pay raise across the board. The new raises are effective on 1 January 2004, this means servicemembers will see the increase in their 15 January paychecks. To learn more about pay, see Military.com's Pay Section.


or This:

Quote:
Bush signs defense authorization act

by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service


11/24/2003 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Calling it a landmark piece of legislation that sends the clear message that "Americans stand with the United States military," President George W. Bush signed the fiscal 2004 National Defense Authorization Act in a Pentagon ceremony here Nov. 24.

A bipartisan group of legislators and Department of Defense civilian and uniformed leaders attended the ceremony.

The act authorizes DOD to spend $401.3 billion in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

"We will do all it takes to keep our military strong, to keep the peace and to keep the American people secure," Bush said.

The money is in addition to the $87 billion supplemental bill passed in early November.






Between the budget wrangling back in early October '02, a specific of which is detailed in your link, and the Nov 24 '03 signing of Public Law 108-136, much has transpired. All of it has been in the news over the past 14 months, scores of reports, articles, and commentaries, and is widely familiar to the military, who are more likely to read the news that affects them than to read what other folks choose to tell their loyal readers about the news that affects the military.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 08:31 pm
Hmm. Wonder why news orgs would stifle this wonderful news....
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 09:40 pm
Funding for the Veterans Administration has increased every year of The Current Administration, with this year seeing the largest VA Budget increase in history. Likewise, military pay has been raised each year, and the Concurrent Receipt restrictions, in place since the Civil War, are being phased out, allowing disabled veterans to draw benefit both from retirement pay and disability pension. While Reserve Component Retention has been a sorespot, recent pay and benefit increases close the gap between the military and the private sector, easing a major cause of the drain, and enhanced reenlistment bonuses have further served to boost retention over the past few months. Overall personnel levels are not at all negatively impacted, as recruiting goals have been surpassed, both for active and reserve components. Retention goals for 2003 may be very nearly met, despite a less optimistic forecast at mid-year, though the reserve component figures have weighed against those for the active component. By the trending, goals appear more than assured of achievement for '04 and beyond. All that is needed to accomplish a significant near-term net growth of military manpower is the funding.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 10:41 pm
About time! I'm with Sophia. I wonder why the news media has kept this under wraps. I read the newspaper almost daily, and don't remember seeing any of these articles. hmmm.........
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 10:44 pm
I'm in favor of all these benefits for our military. Even the state police in California gets a better pension plan than our military folks, and they are at more risk than the police. At least the police can go home every night to their families, while the military in uniform may be gone for months at a time. Their sacrifice is much greater, so their benefits should be greater - IMHO.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 11:10 pm
Quote:
I gotta say that anybody that hasn't picked a side at this point is either ignorant or just hasn't been paying attention for a few years now (which is also ignorant).

I'd like for any bonafide Independent reading these words to share their view about why they're independent, so that you could prove me wrong about this.


Are you asking, pDiddie, if anyone of either party, not just an Independent, has not made up his mind at this point? How extraordinary. The oddity to me would be someone who has made up his mind.

Bushies might have done, I will accept that. But those of us who need a stronger leader are still awaiting the firming up of the candidates. The mettle is yet to be sounded.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 07:59 am
Kara wrote:
I wrote:
I'd like for any bonafide Independent reading these words to share their view about why they're independent, so that you could prove me wrong about this.


Are you asking, pDiddie, if anyone of either party, not just an Independent, has not made up his mind at this point?


No, just the GDIs, Kara, and not those who intend to vote for a third-party candidate.

I think this is a shout into the (online) wilderness, but I'd still like to hear from someone who meet the description.

(BTW, I believe cicerone imposter comes closest to fitting the profile so far, and I know what motivates him: anger.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 08:35 am
Kara

Re our earlier short exchange on the present situation in Israel...this piece has relevance...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16831
0 Replies
 
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 09:11 am
blatham wrote:
Kara

Re our earlier short exchange on the present situation in Israel...this piece has relevance...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16831



Blatham

Thanks for the link.
It expresses all that I have long believed about Sharon, though with much greater authority.

Re Bush

I can't believe that he and his advisors are not 'on to' Sharon's game.
But if they are on to it, why would they let him get away with a policy that is so very injurious to U.S. (and Israeli) interests?
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 10:09 am
Quote:
One additional point...both the reality and the pervasiveness of any police state occuring in the present is very much facilitated - unlike any time in the past - by the technologies which now exist.


I concur with this point, blatham. Also, the marriage of extremism and money against which the police state will go to war may yet result in Armageddon.

Thanks for the link to the piece on Sharon.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 11:21 am
blatham, According to this mornings newspaper, there's an article about some Israeli soldiers refusing to fight in the Palestinian territories. I admire those people for living on principles; they acknowledge that what Sharon is doing is wrong. The Sharon government is building more illegal settlements, and he calls everybody else "terrorists."
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 02:24 pm
c.i., on last Sunday's Sixty Minutes, there was a piece interviewing some Palestinians whose lives are cut in half by the Wall. Some must wait in line, morning and night, to enter from their home on one side of the wall to their fields on the other side. There is a locked gate, and if no one shows up to let them back to their homes after the working day, they must sleep in their vehicles or in the fields. Some must go through a check point every day to get to work; sometimes, they are refused entry, while the next day they may get through. The humiliation they describe is awful. When people are treated this way, their anger and resentment build.

I, too, read that story of the soldiers who refuse to accept orders.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 02:42 pm
They could always look for other jobs or move. Maybe they could move to Syria. I hear there are more job openings there.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 02:45 pm
McGentrix wrote:
They could always look for other jobs or move. Maybe they could move to Syria. I hear there are more job openings there.

1) Other jobs: They are required to possess a work permit from the Israeli government. In addition, there are few jobs in the occupied territories.
2) Move to Syria: This requires permission from both governments, neither of which have shown any tendencies to do so.
I'm going to assume that your comment was an example of ignorance, rather than mean-spiritedness.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.27 seconds on 06/17/2025 at 11:09:00