Tidal Fish Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House insisted that they wanted to cut the federal budget. But the Republican/Democratic Senate and House offered competing plans for achieving savings. When it came time to meld the two proposals together, almost every choice Republican congressional leaders made favored the interest groups.

INCLUDING SCREWING THE VETS WHO PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE FOR THIS COUNTRY!

CNN-March 19,2005
"He maintained that budget cuts include "a $350 million reduction in veterans home funding, which wipes out at least 5,000 veterans' nursing home beds."

"If the president's proposed budget cuts are enacted, nearly 60 percent of the 1,600 veterans will lose their daily stipend that allows them to stay in our state's nursing homes, literally forcing them out into the cold."

Vet co-payments for prescription drugs were tripled two years ago, Rendell said, and "now the president is proposing to again double those increased co-pays."

"In the midst of a war, when many new men and women will join the legion of veterans, does it really make sense for the president to increase the cost of vets' prescriptions 100%".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Frank: Is the care and welfare of our veterans just the concern of the Democratic Party? In my case it is the concern of the Independent Party also.

Here is what the Veterans of Foreign Wars has to say about President Bush's new budgetl


VFW Action Corps Legislative Alert: Veterans Health Care And Benefits: Brink of Disaster

President Bush recently released his VA budget request for next year. The proposal is completely unacceptable.


Now for a FACT from Global Action on Aging 4/12/05

Veterans' nursing homes run by states and the federal Veterans Affairs Department - havens for more than 40,000 former service members - are under fire in this year's budget battles.

President Bush's proposed 2006 budget would drastically cut financial support for up to 80 percent of the veterans in the nation's 129 state-run homes - including Tennessee's two facilities in Humboldt and Murfreesboro - and allow the VA to reduce the number of its nursing home beds from the 13,391 now required by law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
[Q]etouffe123 originally wrote:
Frank: Is the care and welfare of our veterans just the concern of the Democratic Party? In my case it is the concern of the Independent Party also.

Here is what the Veterans of Foreign Wars has to say about President Bush's new budgetl

VFW Action Corps Legislative Alert: Veterans Health Care And Benefits: Brink of Disaster

President Bush recently released his VA budget request for next year. The proposal is completely unacceptable.

Now for a FACT from Global Action on Aging 4/12/05

Veterans' nursing homes run by states and the federal Veterans Affairs Department - havens for more than 40,000 former service members - are under fire in this year's budget battles.

President Bush's proposed 2006 budget would drastically cut financial support for up to 80 percent of the veterans in the nation's 129 state-run homes - including Tennessee's two facilities in Humboldt and Murfreesboro - and allow the VA to reduce the number of its nursing home beds from the 13,391 now required by law.
[/Q]
I think it obvious, all they care about is the power to send soldiers to fight a war, what happens to them after the fact and even during the fact just isn't there concern. History continues to repeat itself, and the fools learn nothing at all. I just finished watching the Documentary about the Weather Underground...Powerful stuff, I didn't know anything about...
I guess Terrorism has it's roots in all societies eh Frank...?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
My advice is to read Dereliction to Duty by Lt Col. Patterson, who worked for Clinton. Then compare how Clinton gutted the military vs how the military has prospered under Bush. Remember this, you cant have a perfect budget and the military's not going to get everything they want. But to fare and honest you need to compare where the military was to where it is now. There ALWAYS needs to be more that we and the US can do to help the military. My business continues to offer substantial discounts for military and I'll continue that policy in Fl when guiding.

Here's a review of the book, good read.
Dereliction of Duty is not a personal attack on President Clinton or a commentary on his various scandals; rather, it is a "frank indictment of his obvious—to an eyewitness—failure to lead our country with responsibility and honor." Lt. Col. Patterson offers a damning list of anecdotes and charges against the President, including how Clinton lost the nuclear codes and shrugged it off; how he stalled and lost the opportunity to launch a direct strike on Osama bin Laden at a confirmed location; how the President and the First Lady, and much of their staff, consistently treated members of the military with disrespect and disdain; and how Clinton groped a female Air Force enlisted member while aboard Air Force One, among other incidents large and small. A considerable portion of this slim book is devoted to the myriad ways in which President Clinton undermined the military, and hence the security, of the nation. He seriously questions Clinton's decisions to send troops to Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and Bosnia to accomplish non-military tasks without clear objectives. Having participated in each of these engagements, Lt. Col. Patterson personally "experienced the frustration of needlessly wasted lives, effort, and national prestige" as well as the alarmingly low morale that Clinton inspired.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Frank if you get a free moment, please read the following
And know that Bush's Building up of the Military Complex, is nothing to applaud. That money is going to the likes of Lockhead Martin, not the common soldier and veterans, who now need it more than ever. They are indeed getting screwed...!

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII.

So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
Luv I have read this speech, and has become a prescription for among other things, scientific research, which the military has used to save lives.

I think, if you ask the in country boots on the ground, what is most important, some extra money and benefits in their pockets or improved equipment, which can save their lives, I think the vote goes to the latter.
However, I defer to Fisk, and current military to decide how they want the military budget pie sliced.
Again, I'd like to see the military get more bennies and pay, as well as PD,FD that put their lives on the line, but that's just me..not everyone thinks the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
No Luv, what speaks volumes, are people like Hannity that hosts his annual freedom concert for disabled, deceased vets & their families. I dont remember you giving kudos to Hannity.

But just per chance I Googled up Streisand's Freedom Concert for Dis. Vets-None

How about Thom Hartmann, lib talk show opposite Limbaugh- None

What about Al Franken- None.

But really what liberal is speaking up for the military. They are telling the military establishment that they are losers, baby killers, civ killers etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
[Q]Capt Frank originally wrote:
No Luv, what speaks volumes, are people like Hannity that hosts his annual freedom concert for disabled, deceased vets & their families. I dont remember you giving kudos to Hannity.

But just per chance I Googled up Streisand's Freedom Concert for Dis. Vets-None

How about Thom Hartmann, lib talk show opposite Limbaugh- None

What about Al Franken- None.

But really what liberal is speaking up for the military. They are telling the military establishment that they are losers, baby killers, civ killers etc.

[/Q]
Frank, the weak name calling of Liberal this or Liberal that does speak volumes, volumes of BS that is. The Liberal label doesn't fit me, as I have stated maybe 100x or more. So I will not defend the Liberal position, and may sometimes attack it as I will the Neo-Conservative rhetoric.
I don't think it too much to ask that those who so vehemently support this War, also support the troops. That support of the troops, fundraisers and the like has been done by those who support and do not support the War itself. I aslo started a thread for the wounded warriors project, check it out. As far as Hannity goes, what he does that good can be applauded, that other War Hawk BS he shoots out, is ignored by me especially after learnning he is another of that infamous crew who has never once chose to don a US Military uniform, much like Cheney, Wolfowitz and other War Hawks in the administration. Or like Mr. Bush chose to opt out of combat during Vietnam for Business School.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
Luv4, did you ever put on the uniform? If you did, we thank you for your service. If you didn't, what right do you have to dis anybody else who never wore one either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,995 Posts
Between tax cuts for the rich, war profits for Halliburton, or support for our troops - which does the Bush Administration choose, time and time again?

Bush Administration cuts $1.5 billion from military family housing. The Bush Administration cut $1.5 billion for military family housing, despite Department of Defense statistics showing that in 83,000 barracks and 128,860 family housing units across the country are below standard. ("Nothing But Lip Service," Army Times, June 30, 2003; "House Appropriations Committee Approves $59.2 Million for Ft. Hood," U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards Press Release, June 17, 2003)

Bush Republicans support millionaires instead of military veterans. Bush allies in Congress stopped efforts to scale back the tax cut for the nation's millionaires by just five percent - a loss of just $4,780 for the year - in order to restore this funding for military family housing. ("The Tax Debate Nobody Hears About," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)

Bush Administration underfunded veterans' health care by $2 billion. The Bush Administration's 2004 budget underfunded veterans' health care by nearly $2 billion. ("Vets Health Low on Bush's Priority List," The Hill, September 17, 2003; "Support for Troops Questioned," Washington Post, June 17, 2003; U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs, September 2002)

Bush Administration proposal would end health care benefits for 173,000 veterans. More than 173,000 veterans across the country would be cut off from health care because of Bush Administration proposed budget cuts and its plan requiring enrollment fees and higher out-of-pocket costs. ("Support for Troops Questioned," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)

Bush Administration budget cuts force more than 200,000 veterans to wait for health care. Over 200,000 United States veterans have to wait more than six months for a medical visit because of health care shortages. ("VA Health Care Funding Alert," Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Press Release, January 31, 2003)

Bush Administration opposed plan to give National Guard and Reserve Members access to health insurance. Despite the war efforts of America's National Guard and Reserve Members, the Bush Administration announced in October 2003 its formal opposition to give the 1.2 million Guard and Reserve members the right to buy health care coverage through the Pentagon's health plan. One out of every five Guard members lacks health insurance. ("Bush Opposes Health Plan for National Guard," Gannett News Service, October 23, 2003)

Bush Administration cuts $172 million allotted for educating the children of military personnel. The Bush Administration's 2004 budget cut $172 million of impact aid funding. Impact aid funding assists school districts by making up for lost local tax revenue from tax-exempt property, such as military bases. These education cuts will especially affect school-age children of troops serving in Iraq who reside on military bases. ("Support for Troops Questioned," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)

Bush Administration tax cut denies military families increase in child tax credit. The families of 262,000 children of military personnel do not receive the child tax credit increase because the plan fails to cover taxpaying families with incomes between $10,500 and $26,625. According to The Washington Post, the House version of the Bush Administration plan "wouldn't help many of those serving in Iraq." One solider who will not benefit is Army Specialist Shoshana Johnson, the soldier and single mother who was wounded twice in the same convoy as Jessica Lynch. ("Ex-POW's Family Accuses Army of Double Standard on Benefit," Washington Post, October 24, 2003; "The New Senate Child Credit Legislation - What It Does and Does Not Do," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 25, 2003; "Whose Child Is Left Behind," Children's Defense Fund, July 23, 2003)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Thanks for the research CSLUG.

Hopefully a few Republicans will vote for officials who care about our veterans. Apparently Bush supports "send em to war...and who cares what happens to them later".

I do notice the lack of "ditto-head" spin...guess they are working hard to twist the facts.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top