1
   

Why Would Any Military Person Suppoert Bush?

 
 
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 07:04 am
Here's just a small sample of what has occured during this administrations time in office regarding our military.

Kenneth Norris: This is how Bush supports our troops, USA Vanguard, January 30, 2004
"Do you support our troops? If so, prepare to be outraged that our commander in chief does not. The Bush Administration's 2004 budget proposed gutting Veterans Administration (VA) services, including health care funding. Proposed cuts included: denying at least 360,000 veterans access to health care; $250 annual premiums; increased pharmacy co-payments; a 30 percent increased primary care co-payments; and increased waiting time for a first medical appointment. Because of budgetary shortfalls, the VA suspended the enrollment of veterans not injured in service earning between $24,450 and $38,100 annually. VFW officials estimated the administration's VA budget is at least $2 billion short of meeting the demand for quality health care. The FY 2004 budget approved by Congress calls for reducing VA funding over a 10-year period by $6.2 billion. Cuts are in the areas of veterans' health care and disability benefits." (2/3)

Gautham Rao: Bush Administration Mistreats Military [And Vets], BuzzFlash, November 22, 2003
"If there ever was any doubt that President Bush and the Republican-led Congress have failed to offer support to U.S. troops sent to fight an unnecessary and costly war, this compendium of excerpts from news stories, editorials and speeches makes the case." (See also Sandra Jontz' "Some Army Troops Unpaid For Weeks, Denied Medical Care" in Stars and Stripes," and BuzzFlash, "Indignities Endured by U.S. Military Veterans"). (11/25)

BuzzFlash News Analysis: Indignities Endured by U.S. Military Veterans, Buzz Flash, November 11, 2003
"Today it's clear to many veterans that the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress think of them on other days of the year besides Veterans Day. They're thinking of veterans as they work to cut off VA healthcare. They're thinking of veterans when they refuse to address lingering health problems from the first Gulf War. They're thinking of veterans when they block full retirement and disability benefits. And they're thinking of veterans when Bush decides, yet again, not to attend a soldier's funeral or pay a visit to those who are recovering from injuries at Walter Reed Army Medical Center just a few miles from the White House... . BuzzFlash is committed to revealing the numerous ways in which Bush has gone back on his pledge to be an advocate for veterans. Excerpts from news stories, editorials and speeches detailing Bush's and Congress' actions are provided here. (See also Dave Lindorff's "Bush's War on Veterans: The White House Attack on the Troops" .) (11/15)

Paul Krugman: Support the troops, New York Times, November 11, 2003
"[S]ince it's Veterans Day, let's talk about how the big squeeze on spending may be alienating a surprising group: the nation's soldiers. One of George W. Bush's major campaign themes in 2000 was his promise to improve the lives of America's soldiers --and military votes were crucial to his success. But these days some of the harshest criticisms of the Bush administration come from publications aimed at a military audience. For example, last week the magazine Army Times ran a story with the headline "An Act of 'Betrayal,'" and the subtitle "In the midst of war, key family benefits face cuts." The artic'le went on to assert that there has been "a string of actions by the Bush administration to cut or hold down growth in pay and benefits, including basic pay, combat pay, health-care benefits and the death gratuity paid to survivors of troops who die on active duty.' " (11/15)

Mark Benjamin: Sick, wounded U.S. troops held in squalor, Washington Times, October 18, 2003
"Hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait -- sometimes for months -- to see doctors. The National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers' living conditions are so substandard, and the medical care so poor, that many of them believe the Army is trying push them out with reduced benefits for their ailments. One document shown to UPI states that no more doctor appointments are available from Oct. 14 through Nov. 11 -- Veterans Day." (See also: Steven Rosenfeld: The Pentagon's Achilles Heel). (10/21)

Heather Wokusch: Lawsuit for Gulf War veterans targets WMD businesses, Smirking Chimp, August 22, 2003
"A lawsuit on behalf of over 100,000 Gulf War veterans [link] has the Bush administration on edge and businesses running for cover. The class action suit names 11 companies and 33 banks alleged to have helped Iraq with its chemical weapons program in the 1980's, despite knowledge Saddam Hussein was actively using WMD against both Iranians and his own people. At the time, Reagan's Middle East envoy was one Donald Rumsfeld, hard at work opening doors for Hussein's regime to purchase millions in aircraft, hardware and other potential weaponry." (8/26)

For further reading the links can be found here: http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/veterans-issues.htm
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,616 • Replies: 70
No top replies

 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 07:20 am
Yes honey, but the swift boat veterans say Kerry is a fibber.......and don't forget that Clinton fellow and those blow jobs and such.......you can find out everything you need to know about why bush is the only man to lead our country by wqtching Fox news five minutes a day and reading your scriptures about the abortion part that's so prominent.....
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 07:28 am
Squinney- I would like to address the first point in your post, about VA services, of which I am personally familiar.

As the costs of pharmaceuticals increased, and medical insurance skyrocketed, many seniors, for the first time, looked to the VA for help. A few years ago, a prescription from the VA cost 2 bucks. Many veterans, mostly from WWII, who had always hertofore dealt with private practitioners, started going to the VA. I know, 'cause I live in a retirement town, and hear all the scuttlebutt.

So, a number of years ago, the VA became inundated with elderly former military, most of whom had not been career soldiers. but were entitled to services, nevertheless. The system became overloaded. Often it took months to even over a year to get on the rolls of the VA. The prescriptions were raised to $7- A couple of months ago, the rules changed, and the VA was only accepting combat wounded veterans.

So the problem was really not the VA, but the entire pharmaceutical situation, and the cost of health insurance. What happened at the VA was simply the fallout from a much larger problem.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 07:39 am
taking care of every veteran who is entitled to services is something the miltary promised and sold as part of the package. "We didn't know everyone would actually want the benefits they're entitled too" is horseshit of the greatest variety IMO.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 08:09 am
Bi-Polar Bear- Sure, you are right. But what is a system to do when they are, in a very short time, inundated with many more people than usual? You can't provide service, when you don't have provisions for providing service. I do think though, that if the government promised service for ALL veterans, steps need to be taken to remedy the problem.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 08:13 am
From what I have been told by some of my friends the cost for prescriptions at the VA is going up to $15 per.
As to the costs involved in providing the promised benefits to veterans. If there is enough money to give large tax cuts to the wealthy and to provide corporate welfare there should be funds to provide the promised benefits to those who have laid their lives on the line to protect this nation including the many shirkers in this administration. It would seem that Bush has gone AWOL again this time it has been from the promises made to the veterans of this nation. Has the man no shame or conscience? Doesn't the God he professes to follow say something about false promises?

Note. $189 billion have been spent to support Bush's misadventure in the Mid east.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 08:33 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear- Sure, you are right. But what is a system to do when they are, in a very short time, inundated with many more people than usual? You can't provide service, when you don't have provisions for providing service. I do think though, that if the government promised service for ALL veterans, steps need to be taken to remedy the problem.


Take the money from unnecessary bullshit programs....like war in iraq for instance.....or one of a billion pork progams on the books....
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 09:01 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear- Sure, you are right. But what is a system to do when they are, in a very short time, inundated with many more people than usual? You can't provide service, when you don't have provisions for providing service. I do think though, that if the government promised service for ALL veterans, steps need to be taken to remedy the problem.


What can you do?

Well, you should cut taxes of course-- especially taxes on capital gains and such.

The veterans who need services should be very happy about that. The fact that we are spending money that could be used to provide services to work toward a space-based partical laser to protect them from enemy ICBMs should help ease the pain as well.

What the heck are they complaining about?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 05:12 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear- Sure, you are right. But what is a system to do when they are, in a very short time, inundated with many more people than usual? You can't provide service, when you don't have provisions for providing service. I do think though, that if the government promised service for ALL veterans, steps need to be taken to remedy the problem.


Take the money from unnecessary bullshit programs....like war in iraq for instance.....or one of a billion pork progams on the books....


How about we take the money from people who have done nothing for the country first? How about we cut the welfare rolls for those leaches and provide that money to those that have served. I think that should fix the issue. I don't mean to be rude but when it comes to those that have served and those that haven't done a thing but suck off of the govt tit, then remove the tit and make them fend for themselves!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 05:19 pm
Baldimo
Could you be more specific regarding the people who are nursing at the governments teat.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 05:23 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Take the money from unnecessary bullshit programs....


Disband the useless federal department of education, and cut welfare to the lazy leeches who don't carry their own weight.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 05:31 pm
I rarely (OK, never) agree with Karzak, but the Dept. of Education, under the Bush regime, probably should be disbanded.

No child left behind, right...
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 05:40 pm
It should have been disbanded by Reagan, as he promised but didn't deliver.

It has always been a waste of money.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 06:00 pm
au1929 wrote:
Baldimo
Could you be more specific regarding the people who are nursing at the governments teat.


People on welfare, and other over bloated social programs. I know there are people who receive social security checks and aren't even retired or of age to receive them. It is these types of programs that could be cut back on and we would have money for the vets.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 06:11 pm
baldimo

Anyone receiving a social security check for whatever reason deserves it. I suppose you are speaking of people on disability or children of a deceased parent. Those are the people you propose to hurt. How about corporate welfare or pork barrel projects that congress people vote for their constituencies.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 06:17 pm
Why would someone on disability deserve social security? Isn't the purpose of social security for retirement? Being disabled isn't being retired, besides it isn't the purpose of the govt to make sure people are taken care of.

Corporate welfare can be a good thing, it helps keeps jobs in the country and also helps certain needed items from disappearing. I speak of transportation as the main one I can think of. It also helps companies from having to fire too many people, so it helps with limited employment.

Care to name some of the pork barrel projects that you are concerned about? I can tell you right now some of the BS I can think of. They are doing a study of gay Indians. How is society going to benefit from such a study?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 06:46 pm
Baldim

Pork Barrel projects voted by congress
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2004
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 06:49 pm
Baldimo
Yes it is the responsibility of government to help those who can't help themselves. If you think not would you suggest we just line them up and shoot them?

As for corporate welfare companies receiving it through tax breaks continue to move to cheaper labor markets as fast as the greedy little asses are able to.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 07:41 pm
au1929 wrote:
Baldimo
Yes it is the responsibility of government to help those who can't help themselves. If you think not would you suggest we just line them up and shoot them?

As for corporate welfare companies receiving it through tax breaks continue to move to cheaper labor markets as fast as the greedy little asses are able to.
Can you tell me where in the constitution it says that the govt has to help those that can't help themselves? I don't recall ever seeing that in the Constitution. Why does it have to be the free money or else? Why not provide them with something other then free money? Why not provide them with the types of jobs that others don't want. You forget that illegal aliens also get welfare, do we also have to provide them money from a system they have never paid into? Why not give the welfare people the jobs that the illegal aliens do, make them pick in the fields or wash the dishes or work the construction jobs. This would make it so that we don't have to shoot them as you suggest.

What else are companies there for but to provide services and make money. Put tariffs on those that move off of US soil. I suppose you don't support that though do you.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2004 07:49 pm
first we shoot the welfare bums
then we shoot the corporate welfare bums
then we shoot mentally retarded
then we shoot the people under 5'5"
then we shoot the people over 6'3"
then we shoot the brunettes
then we shoot the red-heads
then we shoot those making under minum wage
then we shoot those with IQ's under 110
then we shoot those with IQ's over 131
then we shoot those that demand pudding when they haven't eaten their meat.
It will be just like the 4th of July.
I love a parade.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why Would Any Military Person Suppoert Bush?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 09:23:13