Bush loves all you vets!!!

Not...

In Bush's budget, we get:

$14.6 billion cut from veterans benefits over the next 10 years.
$449 million of vets medical benefits from next year's budget alone.

Boy! Those guys sure do know how to support them troops, golly!!! Thanks for risking your lives...

What a jackass!!

And, on a side note, some of the most brilliant satire I have ever seen:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3921/bush_visits_uss_truman.html

 

Lies...

Here's a response by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, all direct quote:

"One of the byproducts of the Internet Age is the blinding speed with which rumor becomes accepted "fact" among those willing to believe. More than a century ago, a wise man wrote, "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on." Today, lies can rocket around the world before the truth can even find its socks. Only prompt intervention can squelch rumors before they are widely accepted as truth. Here's a rumor that desperately needs squelching -- On the eve of our battle to liberate the Iraqi people, Congress slashed funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the organization I am privileged to lead. This rumor has the potential to frighten our nation's America's veterans, and to undermine morale among our brave troops in the field. The rumor has already surfaced on the Internet, in Hollywood, and on the op-ed pages of the venerable New York Times. Even a member of Congress, in a Chicago Sun-Times op-ed published April 13, wrote of a "$28 billion cut in veterans' benefits and health care." If any such cut in veterans' benefits were made, veterans and their families would be justifiably concerned. But there is no truth to any suggestion or assertion that VA's budget will be "cut" or "slashed" next year. In fact, funding for veterans programs will increase in fiscal year 2004, probably by record levels. President Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget requests a record $63.6 billion for our nation's veterans, including a nearly 8-percent increase over the fiscal year 2003 budget for discretionary funding - which mostly pays for VA's health care system -- and a 32-percent increase in overall funding since fiscal year 2001. And the Budget Conference report the House and Senate agreed to on April 11 raises the suggested levels of discretionary funding for veterans by an additional $1.8 billion. This rumor may have been fueled by a parliamentary maneuver that escaped even the most die-hard C-Span viewers. At about the time the Iraq war began, the House of Representatives passed a resolution requesting House and Senate Appropriations Committee members to reduce most federal agencies' funding, including VA's, by 1 percent in fiscal year 2004, a reduction they believed could be made up by reducing waste, fraud and abuse at each department. If that measure had passed, it would have lowered the amount of the record increase in funding President Bush proposed for veterans, but it would not have cut VA's funding. Lawmakers, however, quickly recognized the impact upon veterans and exempted VA from the across-the-board reductions. So, despite rumors they may hear to the contrary, veterans and their families, including our newest generation of veterans, should rest secure in the knowledge that a grateful nation honors their service to America. These days, the only cuts at VA are to the waiting lists for medical care and the backlog of compensation claims. While VA can always use more money, the interests of America's veterans and their families will continue to be protected by Congress, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the President"

Come on E, you can do better than that!

 

Oh, geez, Steve!!

You're quoting a nice soundbite. You and I both know that. It's marketing at it's best.

The Veterans Affairs Committee recommended $64.1 billion in spending, while the House passed only $60.7 billion and the Senate $63.7 billion. The House and Senate numbers still need to be reconciled.

Last year's budget allocated $58.1 billion, and while this year's budget is an increase over last year, the number of veterans is also increasing. You've got to look at the increase of the budget vs. the increase in vets & vet services rendered.

A nice summary of that issue:

http://www.tgorski.com/Treatment/budget_cuts_overwhelming_in_va.htm

(the story is an AP. don't know about the website...)

More later. I am onsite at a clients and it's time for my dinner break.

Working a 15 hour day, ya know!!

Side note: I'll be at Road America on Sunday. More on that later.

 

Emathy - aren't you the same guy who made all sorts of claims about language contained in the Patriot Act that isn't in there, even posting a link to the law that you hadn't read, and then bolstered your claims with quotes from the ever-authoritative Nat Hentoff?

Perhaps you ought to be a bit more critical of your sources

 

Some facts, then:

Veteran Specific Highlights:
23% of homeless population are veterans
33% of male homeless population are veterans
47% Vietnam Era
17% post Vietnam
15% pre Vietnam
67% served three or more years
33% stationed in war zone
25% have used VA Homeless Services
85% completed high school/GED compared to 56% of non-veterans
89% received Honorable Discharge
79% reside in central cities
16% reside in suburban areas
5% reside in rural areas
76% experience alcohol, drug, or mental health problems
46% white males compared to 34% non-veterans
46% age 45 or older compared to 20% non-veterans
Service needs:
45% help finding job
37% finding housing

During a year 2.3 - 3.5 million people are homeless in America that would then indicate by taking 23% of that range for veterans, there are 529,000 - 840,000 homeless veterans over a year. Those stats are from 1996, so you know they're actually higher than that now.

Ronald Reagan cut veterans benefits, as did Bush I. Clinton increased them. Bush II did indeed have the 14 billion in cuts over ten years in his budget. Just how the approved budget will treat veterans is hard to forecast. That dialog got swallowed up in the sh!tstorm over who is benefiting from the tax cuts (read: rich, middle class or poor).

Take a look at any VA hospital, if you dare. They're all understaffed with more demand than they can handle.
In 1996 the VA reported that more than 489,400 Gulf War veterans have received medical care in VA facilities. That's close to 50% of the troops that served in the Gulf War.

Draw your own conclusions, then. I know what mine are.

But, most likely, you'll roll your eyes...make some snappy comment...and keep on pretending these things don't exist. It's easier that way, isn't it?

 

Source, please.

 

Veteran Homeless Statistics:

http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm#facts

Reagan, Bush I, Clinton's budgets are on record. As is Bush II's initial budget proposal.

All sorts of interesting facts about VA hospitals from a VA audit/report:

http://www.freedomsguardian.com/evidence/00-00358-44.pdf

Including some bad:
...(70 percent) told us that their workload was unmanageable, 31 (39 percent) felt resources were inadequate to be efficient, and 40 (50 percent) stated there were insufficient staff in their functional area to adequately care for patients."

"All of the clinical managers and 86 percent of the clinicians surveyed felt necessary medical technology and specialized care was not available at this facility."

"...found that groups being run for PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) patients were educational in nature, and not therapy as prescribed. Further, it was found that the groups were walk-in, non-scheduled activities that were often run by the veterans themselves, were cancelled without notice, and admission to the group."

"Additionally, facility statistics show that about 40 percent of domiciliary discharges were irregular (against doctor’s orders), but there was no local policy or guidelines addressing irregular discharges, readmissions, or study of recidivism and its relationship to irregular discharges and the quality of discharge planning."

"We also observed that much of the bedding and furniture was in poor condition."

"We concluded that while some recent efforts had been made, there was a need to conduct a thorough top to bottom cleaning of all domiciliary units"

"...experts identified 20 drugs that are considered inappropriate for use by elderly patients because alternative drugs provide equivalent therapeutic benefits with fewer side effects. We reviewed three of these drugs that were on the VAMC Dublin formulary - Amitriptyline, Propoxyphene, and Dipryamole and found that they were regularly prescribed to the elderly."

"Medical record reviews of acute care patients showed that treatment plans were absent in 5 of 13 (38.5 percent) records."

"...in 6 of the 15 charts reviewed (40 percent) the actual discharge was deferred. Further, in four of these six cases, it was found that the patient was not meeting the established goals but no updated treatment plan could be located."

This official document also lists millions of dollars in equipment unaccounted for. Reports on some other VA facilities were censored (VA calls it Redacted) or removed from public view.

The full list of reports from 2000 can be found here: http://www.va.gov/oig/52/reports/2000/fy2000rpts.htm

Will that do?

 

Yes, that will do

1st, I will not pretend that the VA is perfect, it's a government agency after all. In fact, no organization is perfect! I, as management consultant, could walk into the most succesful organizations in the world, Wal-Mart, GE, Microsoft, the US Military, Honda HRC, etc... and find a whole report worth of inadequacies. Does that mean the Waltons, Gates, and Rumsfelds of the world are wholly inadequate?

2nd, it's interesting the report you quote from is year 2000. After 8 years of Clinton, is it any wonder? Do you know how long it takes for large organizations to change for the better? Do you even know how long it takes for small organizations to improve?

3rd, what effect did the 1996 changes in VA eligibility have on quality of services?

Your original point was not "the VA is not perfect"...your original point was to say Bush is cutting VA funding, does not care about the troops, and thus is a jackass. The opposite is true, Bush has proposed large increases for the VA, obviously cares for the troops, and may or may not be a jackass depending on your point of view. I'm sure Saddam agrees with you on that point

 

Re: Yes, that will do

Whatchutalkin' bout, Stevie?!?!?!

It's a matter of public record that Bush's initial budget proposal, the quizillion-billion dollar tax cut one, included billions of cuts to veteran benefits over the next ten year period.

Large increases? She-ite, man! The VA is chronically under-funded and under-staffed. That band-aid amount for this year wouldn't have been good enough 4 years ago, let alone now! Especially with the incredible increase of services requested.

Half of the people who were overseas in the Gulf War had already requested VA medical services as of 1996 alone. It's only getting larger.

Again, it's a matter of public record that Reagan and Bush Sr. BOTH cut veteran benefits. Clinton increased them. Bush Jr. at this point is an unknown, but judging by his initial budget he wants to axe them, too. The only reason there's this little blip up in the VA budget this year is because of all the negative publicity.

Had he cared, he wouldn't have attempted to cut the benefits in the first place. At this point he's just backpedaling. 10 to 1 that the first chance he gets he'll try to cut them again. If the American Legion and other veteran groups don't catch on like they did this time, it'll go through.

Side note: The point about the VA isn't that it, or the people who work there, suck. The opposite, in fact. They do the best they can with budgets set by politicians who, apparently, rarely give a shit unless they can get PR out of it. Bush Jr included.

Now that sucks.

 

Sorry...

...your "matters of public record" are not supported by the public record

 

We don't do it for the benefits Bunghole!

 

Nope, but what you were promised should be kept, dontcha think? You guys didn't bust your ass just to get jerked around later on by some dipshit with a political agenda.

 

Re: Sorry...

Ronald Reagan proposed firing 20,000 VA medical personnel and scrapping part of the VA counseling program—in the midst of a suicidal epidemic among Vietnam vets in the 1980s.

George Bush Sr. pared $600 million from the VA and revoked the whopping $237 once given to families to help bury veterans.

Bill Clinton increased benefits and pay with the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998.

Next?

 

Am I wrong or does our friend E work for the VA, right??

Worried about your job??

 

Eh? Nope, I don't work for the VA. I do have multiple Uncles who are veterans. My Dad is a vet. Many of my friends have served. I have a cousin who is career Navy (Naval Intel).

That aside, it's also the principle of the thing. Do you think someone who has served in our armed forces should be left on the street, homeless? Or be unable to get proper and timely health care because of someone's political agenda?

I dont think so, myself. That's just me.

 

That depends.

If a vet put in 35 years and retires at age 55, then he should be taken care of, obviously, and they are!

If a vet puts in 20 years and retires when he is 40, I'm not sure he should be on the government dole for the rest of his life. He should probably be meaningfully employed for another 15 years or so (at least) for the good of society. His pension and other benefits will be nice subsidies until the full benefits kick in.

If a vet puts in 5 years and then works her way up to a 60K job with benefits, she should use those benefits and not the VA benefits (I think referred to as schedule 8, which basically puts those veterans making more than the national average income at the bottom of the priority list for VA benefits.)

 

Clinton had to raise the budget for the damn VA.

Shit with all the gays coming out the cost of remodelling the hospitals would shoot through the roof. Shit with all the building codes for retrofitting old government owned building with skylights and chandeliers alone would trash the old budgets not to mention the new liabilities with all the scented candles.

 

I thought all homeless/poor/... were that way because they were too lazy to get a job. Isn't that the conservative battle cry ??? Ecomonic success is soley and directly related to the amount of effort put forth.

 

I don't remember being promised anything for joining the service. But I guess I was. But these benefits are just that. Benefits, not entitlements like affirmitive action, welfare ect.. I am happy with the care I recieve at the VA Hospital in Columbia Missouri. I would be hurting if I didn't have it. But if I didn't I wouldn't be whining about it. I'd just make do like everyone else should.

Most Veterans are not Guaranteed services. If you do not fit certain qualifications you are placed on the bottom of the list. And if the funding is low, then you must recieve your routine treatment elsewhere. But that is not the case at present. All Veterans with needs are treated if you fall withinn the financial guidelines. People who don't are those Veterans with other Medical Insurance.

All VA Medical Benefits are based on your Status;POW's,Purple Heart recipiants, and those with a high percentage service connected disability are guaranteed treatment. The rest are entitled to treatment only if funding is available. And DUH!!!!!!!! It is!!!! At present the VA is not turning away any Veteran for treatment. SO.....What was your point!!!!!!

Your figures though are correct. THe Substance abuse rates, PTSD, Millions of WWII and Korean Vets are getting old. The system is being taxed, theres no question about that, but I beleive that our Veterans are very high on the list of this Administration. Our president doesn't "Hate the military" like his predcessor.

For credibility test; I am a Vietnam Era Veteran with none of the special circumstances entailed above and I have never been refused treatment, or received any thing but the proper treatment for the last 30 years. I presently go to the VA 4 times a month for treatment.

 

Nah, he loves the active duty folks because he has a use for them. Lots and lots of uses for them.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if he cared that much about vets, would his initial "dream" tax cut/budget proposal have included the billions of VA cuts over the next ten years?

And...you like to diss Clinton, that's hip. But...no comment on GW Sr's whacking of the VA budget? A little ironic, dontcha think, since he sent hundreds of thousands of troops into the Gulf War?

I mean, hey, if you're going to spread the sh!t around, there's plenty for both sides of the political spectrum if you care to look.