"Money for Veterans goes up faster under Bush than under Clinton,..."
Bush started this war, and his rhetoric about supporting our troops by cutting veteran's benefits doesn't jive. You may buy his "I'm the war president," but many of us see him as the dunce that doesn't follow up on what he says. Remember his speech from Jackson Square in New Orleans? Prolly not. He's full of shet.
cicerone imposter wrote:"Money for Veterans goes up faster under Bush than under Clinton,..."
Bush started this war, and his rhetoric about supporting our troops by cutting veteran's benefits doesn't jive. You may buy his "I'm the war president," but many of us see him as the dunce that doesn't follow up on what he says. Remember his speech from Jackson Square in New Orleans? Prolly not. He's full of shet.
Now who's being myopic? Here's the last two paragraphs of the factcheck.org finding:
Quote:All this means Bush can fairly be accused of trying to hold down the rapid growth in spending for veterans benefits -- particularly those sought by middle-income vets with no service-connected disability. But saying he cut the budget is contrary to fact.
(Note: FactCheck.org twice contacted the Kerry campaign asking how he justified his claim that the VA budget is being cut, but we've received no response.)
Fortunately, most of us do not get our "news" from fastcheck. We use generally accepted media for our information.
Budget plan cuts veterans' benefits
LES BLUMENTHAL; The News Tribune
Last updated: February 25th, 2005 08:51 AM
WASHINGTON - More than 10,000 Washington state veterans could face a $1,000-a-year increase for their medical care under a Bush administration budget proposal, a veterans advocacy group says.
And state officials warn that the White House spending plan could force out roughly half of the 600 residents at Washington's three veterans homes, possibly resulting in the closure of one of them.
"It's almost hopeless for the average vet to get taken care of," said John Kenny, who fought as a machine gunner in the Philippines and New Guinea during World War II. "It's a scandal."
The administration has proposed charging some veterans a $250 annual fee for access to medical services provided by the Veterans Administration and more than doubling the copayment for prescription drugs from $7 to $15. The new fees would apply to single veterans making more than $26,000 annually and married veterans making about $30,000 annually.
In addition, the Bush administration budget would significantly reduce federal support for state-operated veterans homes and impose new limitations on who can be admitted.
"This is a Draconian change at time when demand is growing," said John King, a Vietnam veteran and director of the Washington Department of Veterans Affairs. "The baby boomers are right on the doorstep."
At a series of hearings on Capitol Hill last week, administration officials defended their veterans budget, saying it would increase spending by $880 million, or 2.2 percent, even as the federal deficit mounts. And it would refocus services on the most financially needy and seriously injured vets.
"This is a fair, thorough and doable budget which reflects this administration's priority for vets," said Jim Nicholson, secretary of veterans affairs, said under questioning from Sen. Patty Murray (D-Seattle).
In asking some veterans to shoulder the cost of the new fees, Nicholson said it would ensure "sufficient resources for the care of those who need us most."
Murray, however, berated Nicholson and, at a subsequent hearing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. She said they are reneging on a commitment to take care of all veterans, regardless of whether they had served in combat or had been seriously wounded.
Such sorry bastards that would say one thing to the public, and treat our veterans with disdain on another.
These are the Bushco supporters that talks about "patriotism" without understanding anything.
If the initial proposal was a $500 million increase and the final budget draft is a $250 million increase, the Democrats call that a 50% cut in benefits. I think some need to find some new media sources.
cicerone imposter wrote:Fortunately, most of us do not get our "news" from fastcheck. We use generally accepted media for our information.
LOL. What are you saying, c.i.? You don't trust factcheck.org? But do trust the NY Times?
I knew that ....
tico, You're not reading the cuts in the article I posted. Veterans are not only getting cuts, but also their co-pay are increasing. If you can find official documentation that refutes these claims, please show them to us.
Example: If we have 20,000 veterans before March 2003 that are receiving veteran benefits, but the number of vets needing benefits increases to 40,000 as a consequence of our war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the increase in the budget must be 100 percent to keep up with their benefits. Anything less is a "cut."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041111-1.html
The President is committed to honoring our Nation's veterans, and has proposed unprecedented levels of funding for veterans. His Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
represents an increase in overall funding for our Nation's veterans of almost $20 billion -- or 40 percent -- since FY 2001. It includes a 41 percent funding increase in veterans' medical care spending since FY 2001. President Bush's VA medical care budget
increases enable the VA to meet its core medical mission -- to serve our highest- priority veterans, including low-income veterans, those with service-related disabilities, and those who need the VA's specialized services.
Our Nation's commitments are being kept by our military, and President Bush has a strong record of supporting America's men and women in uniform and their families. Since 2001,
the President has provided four consecutive pay raises for the military, improved military housing for families living on base, and reduced to zero the average housing expenses for military families living off base. In 2003, President Bush requested $87 billion in supplemental funding from Congress to help ensure that the troops fighting the War on Terror have the resources to accomplish their mission, including the newest body armor and vital equipment, hazard pay, and health care. The President has also increased monthly education benefits for reservists and Guard members who have been mobilized to fight the War on Terror, and permanently extended the availability of health care benefits for reservists and their families immediately before and after deployment.
70% of Iraqis apparently believe their lives are going well, and ABC News is shocked:
cicerone imposter wrote:tico, You're not reading the cuts in the article I posted. Veterans are not only getting cuts, but also their co-pay are increasing. If you can find official documentation that refutes these claims, please show them to us.
Example: If we have 20,000 veterans before March 2003 that are receiving veteran benefits, but the number of vets needing benefits increases to 40,000 as a consequence of our war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the increase in the budget must be 100 percent to keep up with their benefits. Anything less is a "cut."
CI,
Are you actually saying that its wrong to ask veterans to help pay for their medical care?
ARe you saying that me having a co-pay is wrong?
Then,are you willing to pay for 100% of my medical care?
If you are,please send me a check for $6500 so I can have my shoulder surgery.
It has nothing to do with my military service,but since you want to pay for it,please have the check available on the 19th.
I will e-mail you with my address.
I expect that check by the 21st.
Yes, I'm saying asking our vets to pay for their medical care is wrong.
I'm not saying we are willing to pay 100 percent; our president promised to take care of our vets. With this, I agree 100 percent.
Your asking for $6,500 from one taxpayer (me), just shows your complete ignorance. I want my tax dollars to pay for veteran benefits - 100 percent of it rather than the wasting that goes on by our fderal government.
cicerone imposter wrote:Yes, I'm saying asking our vets to pay for their medical care is wrong.
I'm not saying we are willing to pay 100 percent; our president promised to take care of our vets. With this, I agree 100 percent.
Dammit. I agree with C.I. in this case. But, just what he said here.
cicerone imposter wrote:Yes, I'm saying asking our vets to pay for their medical care is wrong.
I'm not saying we are willing to pay 100 percent; our president promised to take care of our vets. With this, I agree 100 percent.
Your asking for $6,500 from one taxpayer (me), just shows your complete ignorance. I want my tax dollars to pay for veteran benefits - 100 percent of it rather than the wasting that goes on by our fderal government.
So,
If you arent willing to pay 100%,how is it wrong to increase the co-pay for vets?
And this is from your link...
Quote:The administration has proposed charging some veterans a $250 annual fee for access to medical services provided by the Veterans Administration and more than doubling the copayment for prescription drugs from $7 to $15. The new fees would apply to single veterans making more than $26,000 annually and married veterans making about $30,000 annually.
So,you dont think its right to pay 100% of a vets healthcare,but you oppose the govt doing this.
Tell me,how much should my co-pay be raised?
How much should I required to pay?
Or are you saying that you dhouldnt pay,and neither should I?
Your cut and paste is from an article I posted; it's what will happen with the cut in veteran's benefits by this administration.
Let me make is simple so you will understand:
I believe that our government should fund veteran's benefits as promised by president Bush at the time he made the promise.
To take care of our veterans by government sponsored medical and other benefits promised.
It should be paid 100 percent by our tax dollars and any voluntary donations by citizens or others wish to make.
It does not mean I will personally pay for veteran's benefits out of my pocket that's not part of my income tax liability or any donatons I might make for veteran charities.
And I am telling you that I have personal experience with the VA and have NEVER had a problem,been denied care or counseling,or had any of my benefits cut.
Of course,by your own statements you refuse to believe that and have essentially called that an abberation.
You don't want to believe someone that has personal knowledge,because that would ruin your attempt to discredit the admin.
Your experience is not the same of many vets that are denied medical and other benefits promised to them. Can't you get it through your thick skull that your experience is not the same as many vets who have requested medical and other benefits.
Time Magazine is following the NYTimes and LATimes in personnel layoffs.
Quote:TIME INC. CUTS DEEP INTO TOP MANAGEMENT
Layoffs Sweep Through Highest Executive Levels
December 13, 2005
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Time Inc. on Tuesday slashed 105 employees from its rolls, including some of its highest-ranking, most veteran publishing executives.
Among those losing their jobs are Jack Haire, exec VP-corporate sales and marketing group; Richard Atkinson, exec VP- news and information group; Eileen Naughton, president, the Time group; David Kieselstein, president, the parenting group; Fred Poust, senior VP-sales and marketing, corporate sales, under Mr. Haire; and Steve Buerger, VP- sales and marketing, corporate sales. "I feel really badly for a lot of very talented colleagues, but I understand some of the rationale behind it," said Mr. Haire, who has worked at Time Inc. since 1978 and said he was surprised by today's developments.
If I remember correctly, the last subscription offer I received was $5.99 for a year's subscription. Maybe they should consider replacing the propagandists with some new folks. It's what I'd do.
Anyway, I'm holding out for an offer of $1.99 for a 10 year sub. Should be any day now
So what is your personal experience C.I.? Have you been denied benefits? Where? And for what? WHo specifically do you know who has been denied benefits? Where and for what? MM has had no problems nor have any of the MANY veterans in my own family. So where is your evidence?
fox, I do not need "personal experience" to know that many vets are denied what is rightfully theirs. If it were no so, attorneys wouldn't be in the business to help our vets to win legally what is due them.
The Law Offices of Joseph R. Moore specializes in veterans' benefits claims. Many law firms handle mostly Social Security work and moonlight as veterans' attorneys. Our practice focuses solely on veterans who have been denied benefits by the VA. We only represent veterans. We accept no other legal work.
If you have been denied any benefit by the Department of Veterans Affairs, we can help you. Our Managing Principal, Joseph R. Moore, spent three years as an attorney with the Board of Veterans' Appeals in Washington, D.C. prior to starting private practice in August 1999. Since that time he has helped scores of veterans receive benefits from VA offices all over the country.
Within the realm of veterans' benefits law, our specialty is psychiatric conditions. Almost 80% of our clients have claims for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other psychiatric conditions. If you have applied for benefits for a psychiatric condition but have been denied by the VA, you have found the right law firm to contact.
Although we are located in the Washington, D.C. area, we can help veterans from anywhere in the country, including Puerto Rico.
We operate on a contingent basis, which means we accept no money whatsoever unless we win your claim for you. We will not ask you for any money upfront. We only win if you do.
If you have questions concerning your claim for veterans' benefits or the work that we do, please feel free to contact us.
You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult with an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
All contents © 2004, The Law Offices of Joseph R. Moore
