Jump to content

Bush Thanks Veterans, Then Cuts Their Health Care


Rick Munroe
This topic is 6750 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

(from moveon.org)

 

President Bush spent the Memorial Day weekend thanking the nation's veterans for their service, saying "we acknowledge the debt [we owe them] by showing our respect and gratitude." [1] Yet, his rhetoric came just hours after the Bush Administration announced new plans to slash veterans health care funding if it returns to power in 2005.

 

Late last week, the Administration released a memo detailing a plan to cut $1 billion from the Veterans Administration [2] in the first budget of its second term. The cut would come even after the White House has tried to close veterans hospitals throughout the country, [3] and has proposed veterans health care budgets that have been criticized by veterans groups and the President's own Veterans Affairs secretary. [4] It also comes after the president decided to cut off 164,000 veterans from their existing prescription drug coverage, [5] and threatened to veto [6] any bill that would allow veterans to receive both the military pension they were promised, and any disability compensation to which they are entitled.

 

 

Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1349718&l=38287

 

 

Sources:

1. Presidential Weekly Radio Address Speech, WhiteHouse.gov, 05/29/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1349718&l=38288.

2. "Democrats rip Bush's outline for cuts in domestic programs," Palm Beach Post, 5/28/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1349718&l=38289.

3. "VA Seeks Major Hospital Overhaul," CBS News, 8/05/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1349718&l=38290.

4. "President Bush's Veterans' Budget Called Woefully Inadequate and Inexcusable," Senate Democratic Policy Committee, 2/12/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1349718&l=38291.

5. "VA Cuts Some Veterans' Access to Health Care," Washington Post, 1/17/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1349718&l=38292.

6. " Bush Threatens Veto of Defense Bill," Washington Post, 10/7/02, p.A02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought liberals were still pretending that they were upset about the large budget deficits. And yet, every time a budget cut is proposed, liberal sites like moveon.org start whining about how it shows insensitivity and a lack of love for the "people."

 

Is there some economically viable way to eliminate budget deficits without cutting federal spending programs? How can you pretend to be worried about budget deficits but at the same time oppose cuts in federal spending? Don't you realize that it's just like claiming that you're worried about getting HIV but then demanding that all condoms be removed before anyone fucks you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ncm2169

< Is there some economically viable way to eliminate budget deficits without cutting federal spending programs?

 

Yes. It's called a tax increase. Refer to 1993. Seemed pretty damn "economically viable" to me. :7

 

Or, you could call it a targeted repeal of tax cuts. Either one gets the job done. :+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>< Is there some economically viable way to eliminate budget

>deficits without cutting federal spending programs?

>

>Yes. It's called a tax increase. Refer to 1993. Seemed

>pretty damn "economically viable" to me. :7

 

Excellent - please tell John Kerry to run on that platform: "I am against cuts in federal spending, but I propose that we eliminate the deficit by raising taxes." That strategy worked really well for your Minnesota hero Walter Mondale, and I'm sure it will work just as well for Kerry.

 

And I agree with your historical analysis - the Internet boom had nothing to do with the economic prosperity of the 1990's - it was all tax increases. Everyone knows that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Is there some economically viable way to eliminate budget

>deficits without cutting federal spending programs?

 

The issue is which federal spending programs should be cut. The $100 billion spent on Iraq, other than buying us 1,000 dead soldiers by Election Day and the hatred of millions of Muslims around the world, produced nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The issue is which federal spending programs should be cut.

 

So which ones should be cut then? That would be an even better platform for Kerry: "I'm against all cuts in federal spending EXCEPT for military spending, which - in this post-9/11 world - needs to be cut drastically!!"

 

I hope he reads this Board and listens to the brilliant recommendations by the liberals here:

 

* Complain about the defecit

* Oppose all cuts in federal spending - Except cuts in millitary spending

* Argue that the best way to eliminate the deficit is to raise taxes.

 

Brilliant!

 

>The $100 billion spent on Iraq, other than buying us 1,000

>dead soldiers by Election Day and the hatred of millions of

>Muslims around the world, produced nothing.

 

John Kerry voted for that war. Have you heard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>The $100 billion spent on Iraq, other than buying us 1,000

>>dead soldiers by Election Day and the hatred of millions of

>>Muslims around the world, produced nothing.

>

>John Kerry voted for that war. Have you heard?

 

 

Sorry, Doug, but I can't stand idly by while you wipe the floor with these downy-cheeked young innocents. It just isn't a fair fight!

 

So I'll have to remind you that Kerry voted AGAINST the $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war. He supported an alternate bill offered by the Democrats that would have made a substantial portion of the money a loan to Iraq rather than a handout, but Bush threatened to veto any bill that didn't make the money an outright gift. For some reason, Bush was absolutely determined to make sure that every penny spent in Iraq came from the pockets of US taxpayers. Any thoughts about why he insisted on this?

 

I'll also have to remind you that Kerry voted for the original authorization to use force only after Bush told Congress he would use that authorization as leverage to get the UN to bless the invasion and contribute troops and money. Forget about that part, did you? Good thing you have me here to help you out. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>So I'll have to remind you that Kerry voted AGAINST the $87

>billion appropriation for the Iraq war.

 

If I were you, I wouldn't be so anxious to remind people that Kerry voted for the war in Iraq (when the war was popular), but then - while the troops were deployed and fighting (and while Howard Dean was killing him with his anti-war rhetoric) - voted against the money needed to fight the war.

 

That just may have the effect of bolstering the view of Kerry as an unprincipled, flip-flopping leaf who randomly blows in whatever direction the political winds are carrying him.

 

>For some reason, Bush was

>absolutely determined to make sure that every penny spent in

>Iraq came from the pockets of US taxpayers. Any thoughts

>about why he insisted on this?

 

Yes, because it wasn't exactly a good idea to pass bills in Congress declaring that we were going to take the revenue from the Iraqi oil industry, even if we were taking it by calling it a "repayment of loan." That would tend to exacerbate the paranoid of the Arab world - as well as paranoid leftist freaks - that we only invaded Iraq in order to exploit their oil, don't you think?

 

Funny - if Bush favored using the money from Iraqi oil to pay for the war, he'd be accused of fighting the war for oil. He opposes using the money from Iraqi oil, and now he's accused of purposely using U.S. taxpayer dollars to fight the war.

 

>I'll also have to remind you that Kerry voted for the original

>authorization to use force only after Bush told Congress he

>would use that authorization as leverage to get the UN to

>bless the invasion and contribute troops and money. Forget

>about that part, did you? Good thing you have me here to help

>you out. :)

 

The authorization which Kerry voted for in favor of the war in Iraq was not conditioned on U.N. approval, as you well know. Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, and made unambiguous speeches at the time about the urgent imperative of removing Saddam Hussein from power through the means of war.

 

I know that Democrats want to forget this, but Kerry was every bit as much in favor of the war on Iraq as Bush was. There's just no denying that. Howard Dean made that point repeatedly - how can Kerry (or Edwards or Gephardt) possibly run against Bush on the Iraq issue when they voted for the war and supported it every bit as much as he did????

 

It's true that the Administration told Congress that they would try to get U.N. approval for the war, and they did try. But Chirac and, less importantly, Schroeder made clear that they would not allow UN approval under any circumstances. The Congressional authorization for the war - which Kerry voted for - did not contain the condition that the war could be fought only with UN approval, and although I understand why you would want to mislead these innocent lambs into believing that, I don't think it's very nice that you're doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>So I'll have to remind you that Kerry voted AGAINST the $87

>>billion appropriation for the Iraq war.

 

>If I were you, I wouldn't be so anxious to remind people that

>Kerry voted for the war in Iraq (when the war was popular),

>but then - while the troops were deployed and fighting (and

>while Howard Dean was killing him with his anti-war rhetoric)

>- voted against the money needed to fight the war.

 

I have no problem reminding people that Kerry tried to provide our troops with the money they needed, but to make funds for building infrastructure in Iraq a loan, and that Bush threatened to veto BOTH the money for the troops AND the money for Iraq unless the latter was made a gift from US taxpayers. Every poll taken at the time showed that decision was unpopular with the voters and it still is.

 

 

>For some reason, Bush was

>>absolutely determined to make sure that every penny spent in

>>Iraq came from the pockets of US taxpayers. Any thoughts

>>about why he insisted on this?

 

>Yes, because it wasn't exactly a good idea to pass bills in

>Congress declaring that we were going to take the revenue from

>the Iraqi oil industry, even if we were taking it by calling

>it a "repayment of loan." That would tend to exacerbate the

>paranoid of the Arab world - as well as paranoid leftist

>freaks - that we only invaded Iraq in order to exploit their

>oil, don't you think?

 

But we DID only invade Iraq because of their oil. I mean, with the WMD rationale destroyed, the Al Qaeda rationale destroyed, the spreading democracy rationale destroyed, and the ending torture rationale destroyed, what other reason is left?

 

>Funny - if Bush favored using the money from Iraqi oil to pay

>for the war, he'd be accused of fighting the war for oil.

 

See above.

 

 

>The authorization which Kerry voted for in favor of the war in

>Iraq was not conditioned on U.N. approval, as you well

>know. Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, and made

>unambiguous speeches at the time about the urgent imperative

>of removing Saddam Hussein from power through the means of

>war.

 

Yup. It sure was naive of him to believe Bush's lies that Iraq was a threat to us and that Bush wanted to work with the UN. I'm sure he knows better now.

 

>I know that Democrats want to forget this, but Kerry was every

>bit as much in favor of the war on Iraq as Bush was. There's

>just no denying that.

 

There's no denying that Bush lied in order to persuade Kerry and others to that point of view. But Republicans keep denying it anyway. Silly of them!

 

 

>It's true that the Administration told Congress that they

>would try to get U.N. approval for the war, and they

>did try.

 

Well, I guess if telling the other Security Council members a pack of lies about WMD, as Colin Powell now acknowledges he did, is "trying," then one could say they tried. If telling the UN, "It's my way or the highway" is "trying," then I guess you could say Bush tried. I have a feeling those things are not quite what Congress thought would happen when Bush made that argument to them, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Thanks you for posting this info and including references. I

>really appreciate this.

 

I'm glad you appreciated it. That was from a daily email that moveon.org puts out called the Daily Mis-Lead. What scares me is that they are able to constantly give examples of Bush's latest (daily!) deceptions and mistruths. And yes, they always back everything up with footnotes. If you want to sign up for it, or if you just want to go to the site to read today's Mis-Lead (and the archives), the link is: http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df06032004.html

 

>As a veteran, I'm finding that Bush does not

>appear to be a friend of mine. x(

 

More and more people are discovering the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, Bush hates America and I love America so I want him gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...