I come from a military family and I hate it when I see arrogant chickenhawk politicians and contractors (like Bush, Cheney and their pals) getting rich while benefits for serving personnel and veterans are eroded.

Republicans slash veterans' health benefits

_http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid= 59&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

_http://capwiz.com/dav/issues/alert/?alertid=1691076&type=CU

Republicans plan to cut education funds for military dependents

_http://signonsandiego.com/news/education/20030216-9999_1m16fedcuts.html

The Disabled American Veterans page I posted above has links to send an email or letter, if you want do something that will actually help the people in uniform.

Under the Clinton administration, HUGE cuts were made to military budgets, which affected many military families. It's an issue BOTH parties have to answer to.

I just knew somebody would try to defend this by dragging in Clinton. I was never a Clinton fan, but in fact, most of the cuts that Clinton was blamed for were initiated by Dick Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense under George Bush I (in 1990 Cheney proposed a 25% reduction in the military, removing 442,000 men and women from the rolls over five years).

Please though, let's not go there in this thread. It isn't about the size of the budgets anyway, it's about how the money is spent and who profits from it. Military personnel, like other working people, are being asked to pay for wealthy CEOs' tax cuts.

The Disabled American Veterans page I posted above has links to send an email or letter, if you want do something that will actually help the people in uniform.

How can you post this garbage and expect not to get feedback?

I would think coming from a military family you could appreciate what Bush is trying to do. I work on a NAVAL base and under the Clinton admin, we had to reduce by 40% and it almost killed our town. Now we are growing again, ever so slowly. But, now I feel secure in that money is being spent on defending our country through research and development.

Seems to me that you go looking for trouble, Oh great defender of slanted truth :rolleyes:

I have put a new sign up in the redkittycat garden:



Don't the daffodils look lovely today? :huh:

/JD

Seems some of you are graduates of the Limbaugh Finishing School -- where they teach you that an empty-headed sneer is the best way to refute anything that upsets you. Sorry, I'm not impressed, but thanks for keeping the thread visible... maybe you'll do some good in spite of yourselves.

Have you looked at the links? When you're done pissing all over me, maybe you should head on over and tell the vets who put up those pages what you think of the "slanted garbage" they're posting. I'm sure they would like to hear from you.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe for the same reason I decided not to post anything negative in war59312's thread about his uncle shipping out. Didn't seem like the right place for a pissing contest.

Pucker up buttercup :)

Come here and give me a great big kiss already :D

/JD

Both the articles you posted are VERY Biased! Verterans against the war are obviously going to slant any stories about Bush. While they claim the House may be cutting money from a PROPPOSED budget, this does not mean a reduction in current benefits, in fact, spending might INCREASE! How? If spending is now 'X' and Bush want's to raise it 1 million but the house cuts his desire by $500,000 it's an INCREASE, No? (numbers are for example only)

And about the Schools, The money in question seems to go to the school district NOT the children of vets. If this is a 'true' cut, it should be offset by 'the largest increase in history for education' that Bush and Kennedy pushed through congress over a year ago.


I don't have time to research all of these numbers but I've seen Democrats call a 'reduction in the rate of growth' a 'cut' way too many times to believe the links you posted on blind faith. Now, i'm not saying your a democrat but. if you think they are better for defence then by all means vote for them. Or perhaps you think the 'Green' party is a better choice :D

}---:)

tubebuoy -- It's called a point of view, every decent source has one. If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed that I often post sources I don't agree with, but forget me. The DAV are going to be concerned about benefit cuts, but I haven't noticed that they are especially likely to be either Democrats or anti-Bush. Also, if you cared to, you could easily find the same information from other sources, but I think you are living in a house on De Nile.

Of course the money goes to the school districts. That's the whole point. I give you credit for being civil, but it's too obvious that you didn't bother to read the articles. Instead you are mostly constructing your own notion of what they might have said and then dismissing that. Straw men. On the other hand, we all do some sloppy thinking sometimes, so perhaps I'm unjust in believing that you are too mired in your own biases to even look at what is actually happening. Not trying to be offensive, but that's what it looks like from here.

In any event, it's obvious that nobody on these boards gives a flying f_ about this stuff. I'll go talk to someone who cares. After listening to all the flag waving super-patriots on this forum, I have to say I'm disappointed but not at all surprised.

I'm fed up anyway -- Smug plus Ignorant literally turns my stomach and there's too much of it hereabouts. Now I know what to avoid. Good thing you bunch know more about software than you do about politics.