"Supporting" our troops.

In the proposed Bush budget, there is a 14 billion $ cut in veteran's benifits. Yes, that is billion with a B. This includes a cut in burial benifits for those killed in war.

Sure they support the troops, right up until discharge or death.

You cannot support the troops unless you support veterans.

NO TAX CUTS ON THE BACKS OF THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED.

No, Retard, not even if they were for the working stiff and not for the top 1/2%.

 

I hope there is good reasoning behind this, though without more information i can find none. Our servicemen are vastly underpaid for the dangerous and necessary jobs they do, and i think it is very unfortunate if Bush is cutting their benefits. However, tax cuts have nothing really to do with this, and there are millions of other things which could be cut before the tax cuts. Personally, i believe the military budget, except for pay, should remain the same for a while, or even be cut, since smaller agencies, like NASA, do much more with much more limited budgets. The military is one of the least efficient agencies in the federal government.

However, even if Bush proposes this, i read in Newsweek that Congress is raising veterans benefits, so it is unlikely Bush's proposal will pass.

Could you also link a page so i could find more info please? I hate forming opinions without information.

 

I'll second that..

 

Imagine the whole us army going to strike because their boss does not pay them well enough.

 

striking in iraq

 

"It wil be a great day when our schools have all the money they need and the military has to have a bake sale to buy a bomber."
-can't remember who said this

 

Got it here. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20 ... s=borosage

This is a left wing source, but dead accurate. Unlike Rush in both respects.

 

Well, that's certainly discouraging.

I'm sorry, Firefighters don't deserve overtime pay for putting their lives on the line? For digging survivors out of rubble?

And soliders? Well soldiers are grossly underpaid to begin with. Up at sunrise, in bed by midnight(if they're lucky), busting their asses to do their job, and are expected to do so without question, without hesitation. And to take a cut out of survivors' benefits..sickening. Yet, we are expected to support our president without question. We are expected to support our troops, when the very government that employs them shows support to those in its service by cutting benefits, and payrolls. Where those payroll and benefit cuts should be taken from are overpaid and corrupt politicians. Let the administration take a pay cut, not the common people.

But what does one expect from a government that says you're not allowed to drink alcohol untill your 21, that marijuana is a heinous poison and has no medical application whatsoever? But at 18, your old enough to vote, get drafted, drive a tank, and get shot at by someone the administration deems 'the enemy'. Old enough to die, but not to live. Ahh, the sacrifices one must make in the name of nationalism.

The wealthy are the law-makers. The poor are cannon fodder. The men and women that work 10-12 hour days just to feed their families take it in the ass. Firefighters, cops and soldiers don't deserve overtime pay, or survivor benefits. Just smile, and try to relax. It hurts less if you don't resist.

It makes me sick to my stomach. What makes me even more ill is the fact that I'm expected to take it without question. That I'm supposed to offer blind faith. Not in this lifetime.

Well said Demosthenes. Even if it isn't yours entirely, it's quite apt.

 

I have to say, assuming this article had good sources, the 244 billion cut from "domestic discretionary spending" -- which includes things like clinics, and schools -- bothers me a lot more than the (by comparison) measley 14 billion from veteran's benefits.

I just don't see ex-military people as being in that much of a hard spot, especially those with any decent number of years' service. My father in law was in the Navy for over 20 years. His pension check from them is MORE than a starting teacher's salary in most counties in Maryland. I haven't done the research for the rest of the country, but it sounds to me like the military is still in WAY better shape than the public school systems.

The military takes care of their own, especially if you're enlisted and you stay in. You get good health care, sometimes help with living expenses, and a decent salary... better than a teacher would make. And teachers are expected to have master's degrees now. In most other fields a Masters degree is going to assure you at least 50k a year. Not so for teaching. The teachers who are making 50k a year are the ones who've been teaching at the same school for 20 years. That's just ridiculous.

And don't even get me started on tax breaks for the wealthy. My husband and are are both self-employed contractors and between to the two of us bring in less than 100k a year (so we're not in the "wealthy" bracket). We pay nearly 1/2 of that in social security (which will likely be gone by the time we're old enough to benefit) and taxes.

I'm not saying firefighters and veterans should get screwed just because teachers do... so I guess what I am saying is...

All you liberals... come next election... drag your lazy ass friends out of their houses and make them VOTE.

 

What I find so laughably funny is that Clinton's wonderful service and support of our troops isn't mentioned here at all. You guys know what kinda support I'm talking about too.

I'm sorry, Shadygrove, but I think that if you are going to attack our conservative president, you need to bring some real meat to the table.

 

You'll get no argument here.

Very true. Those programs deserve a cut no more or less than veteran's benefits. I won't disagree that the entire military budget needs an overhaul. However, cuts to veterans benefits serves no end. It would mean less incentive to serve, or stay in, more dissention amongst the troops. It means a lower caliber of person(s) will be serving. More 'join the army or go to jail' type sentencing. Lower standards for training with budget cuts means a less prepared armed service. More friendly fire casualties, more civilian casualties.

With human nature being what it is, and the state of the world today, and as much as I disagree with most of its policies, the military is a neccessary thing to ensure--not neccessarily our way of life(because that, in my opinion needs an overhaul too), but our homes and families are safe.

Again, I say, make the overpaid politicians take the cut. Not those who provide our children, our families, with as much safety and preparation as can be afforded in this world. That includes soldiers, paramedics, firefighters, and teachers.

You have a point. That would be his foreign policy? Or his abandonment /hand-tying of the troops in Somalia, Sarajevo, and Haiti?

 

TairNean, I may be getting the wrong message from your last post, but my post about Clinton was meant to be sarcastic. Very much so. He did nothing to safeguard this country against terrorism, turning down custody of bin Ladin 3 times, 3 times, doing nothing about the Yemen, Kenya and USS Cole bombings, slashing our military might by half (why do you think the military is vastly Republican?) Shit like that.

Also, Persephone? I agree with everything you said. Right down to the letter. So imagine my surprise when I read this:

Do you know liberal politician's stand on taxes? You cry for more tax breaks, yet then you say get more lib's to vote! That's like saying, "Hmm, I'm tired of my chickens getting eaten, I think I'll go buy some foxes to guard my chicken coop." Did you not get a check when Bush was elected? I did. How 'bout when Clinton was in office? Nope, me either. Have you not heard of the death tax, marriage penalty tax...? Guess who put those into effect? Guess who's trying to get rid of them, but is consistently held in check by the Senate? (Pssst. Here's a hint. He's a conservative, and our Commander-in-Chief)

 

I caught the sarcasm. I wasn't disagreeing. I was simply pointing out that his[Clinton's] support of troops manifested itself by tying the troops hands, and preventing them from doing their jobs properly in those instances. I was also asking for clarification on your part. You did so, and added a few more examples of the government's failure to support its troops and people. No president is perfect. No president deserves blind faith..
As Clothos has pointed out in the past, the president doesn't answer only to himself, but the Senate, et al. At least that is the Constitutional Theory. It is not any one president, but the government as well, that is failing in its duties to the people.

 

I got no argument there. I do think that partisanship gets in the way of so many good things. For instance, Bush wants 750 billion dollars in tax cuts. The senate wants only 350. Like Bush said, why are they crying about tax relief, yet they only wanna pass such a puny plan? Meanwhile, the House will go the 750. There is too much "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" going on, but then again, whenever there is money involved, the only person that's going to be looked after is good ol' number one. The senators couldn't give two shits about the public. And I blame moderate republicans, swinging with the popular opinion. It was said that during the 2002 elections, the liberals lost the Senate. I've since found out that that isn't true. It seems we got some yellow-bellied repubs playing both sides. It sickens me.

 

I just don't think that any tax cuts make sense at this point. We just had a multi trillion dollar war, and we're cutting taxes? Since the taxpayers have to pay for this war, it doesn't make much sense.

 

Snowmane, of course taxpayers pay for our military. We also pay for a broken Social Security system that we probably won't benefit from, welfare, criminals serving life sentences in prison, t.v., food, hell some of them live better than we do, and get this. The multimillionaires in the entertainment industry want us taxpayers to pay for the Grammys. Yep. You heard it hear first. The Senate discovered a clause slipped in that would allow 80 million dollars of taxpayer money to fund the Grammys. Ain't that some shit? My wife and I struggle to pull in 28 thousand dollars a year, and Ed Asner and Michael Moore and other stupid fuck-heads in the entertainment biz want me and my wife to pay for their little fucking award show, so they can slap each other on the back, tell each other how fucking great they are, and important and smart they are, and thank you sir, how about another glass of this 5,000 dollar a bottle wine, sir? Hell it's taxpayer funded. As long as none of my precious millions were spent paying for it. Nope. Bryant and Amy in South Georgia, who want kids so bad they can taste it, but they can't afford it and a little home and a life for their little family, lets make them pay for it. What do they need with their money? They're not important.

The sorry asses on welfare that have NO FUCKING INTENTION of ever getting of their fat asses are living on my money. They expect a check from Uncka Sam every month/week/whatever or I just imagine they get pissed. Now, I don't think that welfare is such a bad thing, mind you. There are people out there in worse off shape than me and my wife. And for those that get welfare, gov. aid, and get their lives straightened out, and get a job, and actually try to better themselves, I got no problems with that. My heart goes out to those people. But for the fuckers who stay home (in a house I bought them) and mass-produce kids (the more kids, the more benefits the gov. pays) and never lift a finger, well I think they oughta be cut the FUCK off, and throwed out in the damn street.


I heard one congressman, don't remember who it was, but he was a liberal, one of those wacked-out liberals, and he said, "Why do (they) need a tax cut? What are they gonna do with the money?"

(They) meaning the American working people. I wanted to punch his fucking teeth in. It's our fucking money. What do YOU want with it, you dead-shit.

/End rant.

 

I hate to be Crazy Mister foolish person. But WHY does a post-industrial nation which could simply drive any other country into total bankruptcy need such a large army anywho? Despite as a depository for future-free teens and society-conscience sadomasochists?

 

I may be missing something here. Blame moderate republicans? Swinging with popular opinion? I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me.
Are you saying you'd rather have extremists making decisions on your behalf? Regardless of what the people really want?
Perhaps it's a bit idealistic of me, but representatives are supposed to be just that. Representative of the people. Public opinion is what they should be following. Ideally, anyway.

I'd rather see moderates--from both sides representing the people. Those who stand in the middle more often see the whole picture. You said yourself in the other thread that there should be a variety of views on the Supreme Court bench. Doesn't the same hold true for those who are supposed to be our agents?

Here, here! There is entirely too much of that going on in, not only politics, but society in general. Money is the root of all evil, and that is true. Too many people are willing to murder, maim, and destroy in the name of the almighty dollar. Too many lives are given a dollar value.

Again, I cannot argue that. (well, I could pick apart that bad grammar, but it's a Suth'n thang, and would be rather pointless in this discussion...:wink I will say that the welfare system is among many of the programs that need an overhaul. Those who abuse it should be cut. The trouble is, sometimes it's difficult to determine who's actually abusing the system, and who really needs it. I've said before, I was up to my eyeballs in debt, my wife made minimum wage, I was out of work. My unemployment had run out, my rent was at least 2 months behind. Yet , somehow, we made too much money to qualify for assistance. We couldn't even get food stamps. And I was trying to do something about my life. There's something drastically wrong there.

I can't fathom why taxpayer money should fund the grammys. That's just ridiculous. As if hollywood movie moguls don't get enough of our money as it is. We watch their damned movies, and half the time, they aren't worth the cost of the ticket.

 

Sorry to butt in, but people often view the military, especially that of the United States' as a waste of money and resources, but I take the opposite view.

Personally, I see the army as a great testbed for technology, a lot of which is released into the commercial sector when it's declassified. If a recall, the Internet was originally developed for the US military as a more expansive form of communication. The US military also gives people who haven't access to college or university employment oppertunities and a god job with steady pay.

I agree that the US military, especially compared with the British does seem a bit overkill, especually after the fall of communism, but I serves a lot more purposes than one woulde think.

Regards,
Morden

 

We need a large army because as the only super power, the hatred and jealousy of the world gets thrown on us, and because sometimes in our history we have pissed people and countries off, and because most of the rest of the world doesn't do enough to police their own backyards.

N. Korea really shouldn't be a US issue. There are other powerful nations in the area, like S. Korea, Japan, and China which could deal with it, but the US has to because they don't.

The military should be reformed, but veteran's benefits should definitely be left alone for all of the reasons that TairNean mentioned.

I agree wholeheartedly with Retard's rant, since i went down to W. Virginia on a fellowship project to help the poor living off welfare, and i saw big screen tvs, and whole families that sat around on their asses all day, most of them not even helping us fix up their own homes.
There were a few that did help us, and like retard said, if you are willing to help yourself and just need a safety net, that's fine. But sitting pretty using my money is not right.

Budget cuts are necessary in an inflated budget which finances a huge, inefficient bureaucracy. I personally believe that the cuts should be more across the board, with even the military getting some cuts. Lower budgets should promote efficiency and reduce waste, like some departments have had to, like NASA, which runs on a shoe-string budget now.


Personally i strongly disagree with Bush's cut of veteran's benefits, but i am wary of the liberal source which presents this data. I believe it, but just be aware that normally this liberal source would promote cutting military spending, and would often incorporate veterans' benefits into military spending. That's what many liberals, including my teacher do. He claimed that 50% of the US budget went to the military last year, when the real break down is more like 15-30% military with an additional 10% when veteran's benefits, the space program, and other semi-military related endeavors are included. The largest portion of the budget by far is Social Security whihc eats up a third or better of the budget, and is a money pit from which my generation will likely get no benefit.


Oh and Morden279, if your name is a Babylon 5 reference, then you are one of the coolest people in the world!