Somehow this was deemed irrelevent by major media outlets as we send out troops to fight. One more reason for us to support/pray for our troops, and hope they don't get hurt. http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/national/3_18_03vets.html "WASHINGTON - With hundreds of thousands of American troops poised for combat in Iraq, veterans groups are criticizing a budget plan expected on the House floor this week that would slash Veterans Affairs money by $15 billion in the next decade to help make room for President Bush's proposed tax cuts. The VA cuts would take place in disability compensation, education benefits, pensions and health care, according to veterans advocacy groups." Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but for injured soldiers who come back, after your feelgood parades, you'll be treated little better than welfare mothers. I can't claim to know much about it, so I hope somebody can tell me different Come home safe, folks.
Bump dammit. Maybe I'm on too many ignore lists. If so, I hope somebody here is listening, shares some of my outrage, and brings this to everyone's attention. But will somebody - anybody, please explain to me how this "supports" our troops?
We were all at our 5 Minute Hate. At this point, most of the time, I'm too numb for outrage. I'm getting desensitized to the whole fiasco. I'm wondering, now, if it might be best for the US, long term, if everything goes to heck in a handbasket (just heck; hell would be too much), and the sort of anti-intellectual, ideological agenda of the hard right is completely discredited, sort of like nobody takes 60's era redistributive rhetoric seriously nowadays. Break an egg to make an omelet and all that.
We're talking about a 1% reduction. You know you're getting ************************ed when people quote 10 year budget figures. Sheesh! An, no, I don't support the reduction, but let's not get carried away. If you want to discuss the idiotic tax cuts, that's another story.
Well on top of Ben Reilly's outrage, I think you also should take into account the fact that possibly there are less disabled veterans now, less pension benefits etc. Vietnam = lots of disabled veterans, Gulf War I and II so far, not so much. It's not the benefits to the military member that is lowered, its the cost to the entire military.
OK - I may see your point about Vietnam vets, but they don't seem that old to me that they're kicking the bucket in droves and freeing up budget money. But really - please - on one hand, "support our troops or else", but at the same time let's cut the benefits to those who were maimed fighting for our freedom? And for what purpose? Another $300 for each of us, and major cuts for the wealthy who made their money on the blood of those who fought for our country? Shame. But then again, that's the history of vets in america - heros when they fight, but lets hide the maimed and injured so that we don't have to see the results of our interventionist policy. And both sides of Congress have done it, but this time it was a party vote - Repubs gave the finger to old soldiers. Think about that tonight when you eat your freedom fries.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think it is a sickening irony. But that being said, there might just be substantially less veterans. In other words, they don't lose their "per person" rights or they don't lower, just the cost of the program lowers. I was thinking mroe WWII vets no longer with us and Vietnam vets won't be with us much longer. In particular with disability costs.