Why do vets vote for Bush again?

Status
Not open for further replies.

CentralTexas

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
1,235
Location
Austin Texas
NASA= make work program (like a dozen others), bridges to 50 people on an Island in Alaska etc etc etc, plenty of places to save money....
Then the Republicans turn like this on the veterans-


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_cuts_veterans

Veterans May Face Budget Cuts in 2008 By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - At least tens of thousands of veterans with non-critical medical issues could suffer delayed or even denied care in coming years to enable President Bush to meet his promise of cutting the deficit in half — if the White House is serious about its proposed budget.

ADVERTISEMENT

After an increase for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing by leaps and bounds, White House budget documents assume a cutback in 2008 and further cuts thereafter.

In fact, the proposed cuts are so draconian that it seems to some that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better. More realistic numbers, however, would raise doubts as to whether Bush can keep his promise to wrestle the deficit under control by the time he leaves office.

"Either the administration is proposing gutting VA health care over the next five years or it is not serious about its own budget," said Rep. Chet Edwards (news, bio, voting record) of Texas, top Democrat on the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "If the proposals aren't serious, then that would undermine the administration's argument that they intend to reduce the deficit in half over the next several years."

In fact, the White House doesn't seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don't represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

"Instead, the president's subsequent budgets have increased funding for all of these programs," said White House budget office spokesman Scott Milburn. "The country can meet the goal of cutting the deficit in half and still invest in key programs for vulnerable Americans, and claims to the contrary aren't supported by the facts of recent budget history."

The veterans' medical care cuts would come even though more and more people are trying to enter the system and as the number of people wounded in Iraq keeps rising. Even though Iraq war veterans represent only about 2 percent of the Veterans Administration's patient caseload, many are returning from battle with grievous injuries requiring costly care.

The White House budget office, however, assumes that the veterans' medical services budget — up 69 percent since Bush took office and which would rise by 11 percent next year under Bush's budget — can absorb cuts for three years in a row after that.

The cuts are outlined in a 673-page computer printout that has not been officially released by the White House budget office. However, it found its way into the hands of the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning Washington think tank.

The administration insists it makes spending policies one year at a time and that the long-term veterans' budget figures are therefore subject to change.

"We don't make multiyear discretionary funding requests," said Veterans Administration spokesman Scott Hogenson, who declined to speculate on whether long-term cuts were realistic. "We look at our needs and assess our needs on a year-to-year basis."

The rapidly growing budget for veterans' medical services, funded for the current year at $24.5 billion, would leap to $27.7 billion in 2007 under Bush's budget. But the medical services budget faces a 3 percent cut in 2008 and would hover below $27 billion for the next four years, even as increasing numbers of veterans from the Iraq war claim their benefits and the costs of providing care to elderly World War II and Korean War veterans continue to rise.

Those cuts would prove traumatic to the already troubled VA medical system, and would force staff cuts, delay investment in new medical equipment and deny care to hundreds of thousands of veterans.

"The only way you can do what they want to do in terms of actually cutting the budget is to throw a lot of veterans out who are already in the system and/or redefine who is a veteran," said Rick Weidman, director of government relations for the Vietnam Veterans of America.

Even with recent funding increases, cost-cutting moves have locked more than a quarter million veterans out of the system. Those excluded have no illnesses or injuries attributable to their military service and earn more than the average wage in their community.

In Bush's proposal to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term, he's assuming spending on domestic agency operating budgets can be frozen over the next few years.

"Each year the budget numbers go up," said Jeff Schrade, spokesman for Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Larry Craig, R-Idaho. "Speculation beyond 2007's budget is, at this point, just speculation."

But without the cuts, Bush's plan to halve the deficit would be far more difficult to achieve. For example, just freezing the budget for veterans' medical services below $27 billion understates the deficit for 2009 by perhaps $5 billion.

___

On the Net:

White House Office of Management and Budget: http://www.omb.gov
 
Well, last time, it was between Bush and Kerry.

It's not like they'd all go smoke a doob, listen to some old Clash albums and vote Badnarik or Nader, at least not in large numbers.
 
As a Vet in the system, this is one of the reasons that I didn't vote for Bush in '04. Balance the budget on the back of the Vets, but allow illegal immigrants free medical care, education, so forth.
A man truly concerned about our nation's security and the well being of the men and women who sacrifice themselves for it.
You bet. The boy is all cowboy and no hat, or all leather and no bike, depending on how ya want to see it.:cuss:
Biker
 
I think there is a big call for a candidate that will stand for privacy and the maxiumum individual liberty, but who also supports a social safety net. I am not talking socialisim really but for instance miners and chemical plant workers should have safe workplaces. People who worked all their lives should not have to spend their life savings for healthcare, or lose their pensions. Vets should never have to wait for services.

Neither party is really doing this at this time, I believe due to the corrupting influence of the large amounts of cash corporations can bring into the process.

You know health care and end of life care are so expensive now that even people who played by the rules have no money to pass on. Meanwhile they are talking about cutting the estate tax, dividend taxes, and other things that will allow the people at the top to accumulate more capital, meanwhile the middle income folks are becoming increasingly unable to pass anything on, even health care for their spouses:cuss:
 
I voted for my guns

so I voted for Bush.
That monster Kerry voted for a new AWB and skipped an important vote to extend unemployment bennies, so not only is as beholden to big biz an any republican he was also trying to stop me from buying an AR.

Bush was the clear choice even though he has a lot of faults, this stupid guest worker program, unsecure borders, portgate...I shudder to think how much worse it would have been under LURCH
 
People have to get over this idea that somehow we vote for someone we just love right, left, up and down, out of what, 200,000,000 adults in the country.

As far as I could tell, 199,999,995 of us weren't on the ballot, and write-ins rarely have a chance for school board member, to say nothing of President. Some people really liked and like Bush. But most voters just tried, to the best of their ability, to figure out which one of the two was the best choice, and punched their ballots. ...those who voted at all...

A good many serious Libertarians have called Badnarik an "embarrassment." Nader? He was hardly the lesser evil among third party candidates, even!

So, it was Bush or Kerry. I know people who voted for each one, for various reasons. That WAS the choice, you know. And all the Bush-bashing in the world wouldn't turn John Kerry into a great President, and I think that damn near everyone knows it.

Maybe he would have been the lesser evil, but a great President? I'd laugh if I weren't fried on laughing about him a long time ago.
 
:confused:

Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense.

:mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top