Do you feel better about your tax cuts now?

[BSmack]

Well do ya?

[Hapday]

So you didn't spend it, and sent your cheque(s) right back to the government?

[BSmack]

So you didn't spend it, and sent your cheque(s) right back to the government?

My "cheque" went to Exxon-Mobil.

[Hapday]

So you didn't spend it, and sent your cheque(s) right back to the government?

My "cheque" went to Exxon-Mobil.

So you didn't send the cheque back, and are a typical hypocritical left-wing fuckstain. Thanks for reminding everyone.

[BSmack]

VA funding has been drastically increased under the Bush Administration.

Nice try, you fucking scumbag.

Not as drastically as needed. You do remember there's a Jihad on?

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 03002/1001

[BSmack]

VA funding has been drastically increased under the Bush Administration.

Nice try, you fucking scumbag.

Not as drastically as needed. You do remember there's a Jihad on?

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 03002/1001

By 2010? I was wrong. It wasn't even a "nice try". Fuck off, dickhead.

Keep spinning. They're your benefits. Enjoy not having them.

[mothster]

just don't tax my maple syrup

[Mikey]

Reading HapWit's takes can be pretty taxing.

[Hapday]

Yet you still make an effort to read them. That doesn't go unappreciated.

[DrDetroit]

RACK Mvscal for completely knocking out B's post.

[BSmack]

RACK Mvscal for completely knocking out B's post.

What are you talking about fool? He did nothing of the kind. No links, no data, not even any decent rhetoric.

Now, back on point, let's take a look at this link.

Residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home think mvscal is full of shit

Enjoy your phone consultations with the va nurse mv.

[DrDetroit]

The opinions of those at the AF Retirement Home really don't matter in a policy discussion.

You have asserted that the tax cuts have resulted in cutting VA spending.

WRONG! You guys were called on this lie during the election. That you are running it again (much as you recycle the class warfare nonsense, Downing Street memo, allegation of prisoner abuse) says more about you than this administration.

BTW - what would be helpful is if you (the guy who started the thread) would actually post data supporting your position.

But you won't because you're a chickenshit bitch.

[BSmack]

The opinions of those at the AF Retirement Home really don't matter in a policy discussion.

If we were talking about issues relating to male PMS, you might be right. In that case we'd simply ask you to post your thoughts and they would be accepted as gospel by all. But since this is a discussion about Veterans issues, and these vets deal on a day to day basis with the VA, I'll take their word over yours.

And yes, the tax cuts have come at the expense of, among others, the vets who have depended on VA medical services.

[Tom In VA]

http://www.fisherhouse.org

[DrDetroit]

VA funding has increased under this President, dolt.

Therefore, your little picture at the top is completely false.

If funding has increased, then how can you argue that tax cuts have resulted in that funding?

Lie, much??

BTW - now that tax revenues are growing substantially now, are you people going to start proclaiming that the tax cuts have helped to increase government revenue? Or are you going to ignore that, too?

[BSmack]

VA funding has increased under this President, dolt.

So have the number of disabled vets. Or did you miss the little misadventure in Iraq?

[DrDetroit]

Divert, much?

So you admit that spending has increased for the VA...

Props for coming correct, B.

'Bode Bush!

[BSmack]

Divert, much?

So you admit that spending has increased for the VA...

Props for coming correct, B.

'Bode Bush!

If you increase spending by x and the cost of providing an equivalent level of service increases by x + 1,000,000,000...

Well, I suspect even a blithering imbecile like you can follow that reasoning.

[BSmack]

You asserted that VA spending was cut.

That is a lie and you are a fucking dirtbag.

Go fuck yourself.

No, I asserted that services were cut. And that is incontrovertable.

[DrDetroit]

Nice backpedal...

:roll:

You lied. You were nailed for it.

Admit it and MoveOn.

[BSmack]

You lied..

Please feel free to find in this thread (or anywhere else) where I said that VA funding was cut.

[Mister Bushice]

I would imagine the 7,413 U.S. troops that have been wounded since the war in Iraq began on March 19, 2003 up through September 22, 2004, will have a greater impact on the VA budget than what ever increases have been made.

[DrDetroit]

You lied..

Please feel free to find in this thread (or anywhere else) where I said that VA funding was cut.

VA cuts...you didn't qualify your assertion in by explaining that you were referring only to specific line items being cut.

At best you didn't know what you were talking about or, at worst, you simply lied.

Which is it?

[DrDetroit]

I would imagine the 7,413 U.S. troops that have been wounded since the war in Iraq began on March 19, 2003 up through September 22, 2004, will have a greater impact on the VA budget than what ever increases have been made.

You do, huh??

You don't even know how much spending has been increased.
You don't even know the operating costs of the VA.

Yet, you're going to drop a suppositon like that???

[Mister Bushice]

You "imagine"?!?

I imagine it was based on the statement: "Budget $5.5 billion below projected inflation by 2010.

I imagine that convinced me that I am very good at imagining it is true.

[DrDetroit]

You "imagine"?!?

I imagine it was based on the statement: "Budget $5.5 billion below projected inflation by 2010.

I imagine that convinced me that I am very good at imagining it is true.

WTF is this, "Budget $5.5 billion below projected inflation by 2010"????

"Projected inflation?" Puhlease.

Bushice, I can only imagine that you're one of these types that believes that the government, or anyone else for that matter, can accurately forecast this year's economy, let alone ten years from now, eh? :roll:

[DrDetroit]

BTW - answering the question...yes. I feel great about the tax cuts and can't wait for Congress and the President to make them permanent.

Despite the doom and gloom forecasts of the Left, the economy has done very well since the first cuts were implemented.

Add to that the fact that tax revenues are growing substantially...well, shoot, I feel great.

And I'm in the middle class....lol!!!

'Bode Bush!

[Mikey]

You "imagine"?!?

I imagine it was based on the statement: "Budget $5.5 billion below projected inflation by 2010.

I imagine that convinced me that I am very good at imagining it is true.

WTF is this, "Budget $5.5 billion below projected inflation by 2010"????

"Projected inflation?" Puhlease.

Bushice, I can only imagine that you're one of these types that believes that the government, or anyone else for that matter, can accurately forecast this year's economy, let alone ten years from now, eh? :roll:

Obviously Bush's advisers aren't too good at it. Every year he says he's going to cut the deficit in half in five years, and yet every year it keeps getting bigger. I wonder when that five years is supposed to start.

[BSmack]

Obviously Bush's advisers aren't too good at it. Every year he says he's going to cut the deficit in half in five years, and yet every year it keeps getting bigger. I wonder when that five years is supposed to start.

When we get one party in control of the Congress and another in control of the White House. And even then, don't bet on it.

BTW: Any of you dittochumps willing to tell the vets at Walter Reed they are wrong?

[Variable]

Sorry to interject some facts and personal experience into the conversation, but as a disabled vet myself and someone who receives a monthly check from the US Gov't, the only thing that's changed is that they didn't do a $1/$100 received increase this year like they normally do. Whoop de doo! I'm missing out on $24 entire dollars. Those bastards in the Bush Administration!!! :roll: However, props where they're due, I did get an increase every year under Clinton(1996-2000), but as I recall he didn't increase it for the first four years of his presidency.

There have been ZERO changes to the service provided to AF members who were injured in the line of duty and determined to be "worthy" of compensation. This is true of those who are missing a leg, or those like myself who just have a shredded ankle. The changes were to services provided such as standard Primary Care, that overlapped what most could get through medicare programs or through health insurance at their work.

Additionally, the government closed some VA clinics that didn't get much traffic. This is what's caused the most gripes from vets, and legitimately so in most cases. If you live in a town that has a VA clinic and receive care for your old war injuries and that clinic is closed, resulting in you having to drive 6 hours to get care, I can see how you'd be pissed. That being said, it's a big fucking country and we can't afford to open a clinic in Bumfuck, Arkansas, just because someone chooses to live there.

Overall, as long as my compensation isn't cut, I have nothing bad to say about the Bush Administration's handling of disabled vets. Following my most recent surgery(#2), my compensation should probably be doubled. If they do it, great, if they don't, my opinion on the Bush Admin's treatment of vets will most likely need an addendum. :D

[DrDetroit]

I imagine it was based on the statement: "Budget $5.5 billion below projected inflation by 2010.

I imagine that convinced me that I am very good at imagining it is true.

WTF is this, "Budget $5.5 billion below projected inflation by 2010"????

"Projected inflation?" Puhlease.

Bushice, I can only imagine that you're one of these types that believes that the government, or anyone else for that matter, can accurately forecast this year's economy, let alone ten years from now, eh? :roll:

Obviously Bush's advisers aren't too good at it. Every year he says he's going to cut the deficit in half in five years, and yet every year it keeps getting bigger. I wonder when that five years is supposed to start.

Again, another lefty compelled to lie.

Has Bush been saying every year that he's going to cut the deficit in half in five years?

Well?

Once again, you've been exposed as a liar, Mikey.

[DrDetroit]

Obviously Bush's advisers aren't too good at it. Every year he says he's going to cut the deficit in half in five years, and yet every year it keeps getting bigger. I wonder when that five years is supposed to start.

When we get one party in control of the Congress and another in control of the White House. And even then, don't bet on it.

BTW: Any of you dittochumps willing to tell the vets at Walter Reed they are wrong?

Bush hasn't been saying every year that he'd cut the deficit in half.

Secondly, are all the vets at Walter Reed of the same mind re: whether their benefits have been cut?

Liar.

[BSmack]

Secondly, are all the vets at Walter Reed of the same mind re: whether their benefits have been cut?

Why don't you start by asking the ones that had medical emergencies after 4PM? Or maybe you can ask their next of kin.

[Variable]

Why don't you start by asking the ones that had medical emergencies after 4PM? Or maybe you can ask their next of kin.

If you have an emergency you're supposed to go to the nearest emergency room, not cruise city streets for a half hour until you make it to Walter Reed. If Dolores and Madge are too senile to know that, it's not the government's fault.

[DrDetroit]

Secondly, are all the vets at Walter Reed of the same mind re: whether their benefits have been cut?

Why don't you start by asking the ones that had medical emergencies after 4PM? Or maybe you can ask their next of kin.

Perhaps you can demonstrate that vets at Walter Reed believe that VA cuts have been made because of the tax cuts...

And rather than playing this little game of yours make your point and post your "facts."

[Mister Bushice]

You "imagine"?!?

I imagine it was based on the statement: "Budget $5.5 billion below projected inflation by 2010.

I imagine that convinced me that I am very good at imagining it is true.

WTF is this, "Budget $5.5 billion below projected inflation by 2010"????

"Projected inflation?" Puhlease.

Simple concept. No surprise you missed it. You take the average annual inflation percentage figure, determine what your costs will be, and add it to your projected costs. If you don't factor in inflation, there will be a shortfall.

Bushice, I can only imagine that you're one of these types that believes that the government, or anyone else for that matter, can accurately forecast this year's economy, let alone ten years from now, eh? :roll:

No I imagine that this government can only accurately misrepresent reality.

And 2010 is only 5 years from now, einstein. If they use an average percentage figure to calculate inflation they will be far closer to the needed funding than if they ignore it altogether.

Then again, lets hope they accounted for the 20,000 something wounded vets who will need care over and beyond that time frame.

Since they carefully choose to never bring up the number of war wounded, we won't really know until we hear the vets complaining of a lack of needed facilities and services.

[BSmack]

Why don't you start by asking the ones that had medical emergencies after 4PM? Or maybe you can ask their next of kin.

If you have an emergency you're supposed to go to the nearest emergency room, not cruise city streets for a half hour until you make it to Walter Reed. If Dolores and Madge are too senile to know that, it's not the government's fault.

These vets live in a nursing home near Walter Reed. The feds plan on closing Walter Reed. Do a search for Cody et al. vs. Rumsfeld.

[DrDetroit]

Bushice:

Simple concept. No surprise you missed it. You take the average annual inflation percentage figure, determine what your costs will be, and add it to your projected costs. If you don't factor in inflation, there will be a shortfall.

Where do you start with crap like this ^^^ ??

Forecasting inflation is tricky, at best, disingenuous speculation at worst.

You take the average annual inflation percentage figure, determine what your costs will be, and add it to your projected costs.

That's all there is to forecasting inflation??

If you don't factor in inflation, there will be a shortfall

Of course. However, what the quote asserted is that based on x inflation factor, spending would be short $5.5 billion. That assertion rests on forecasting what the rate of inflation will be five years from now.

Are you seriously going to sit here and have us believe that we can reliably forecast inflation five years from now??

Bitch, puhlease.

No I imagine that this government can only accurately misrepresent reality.

Still impugning the careers of thousands of government employees despite not being able to demonstrate their methods of data collection, organization, or analysis have changed???

You are a piece of dried up dog shit, Bushice. I cannot believe the level of arrogance that you exude despite not knowing jack shit.

And 2010 is only 5 years from now, einstein. If they use an average percentage figure to calculate inflation they will be far closer to the needed funding than if they ignore it altogether.

It's speculation, at best, Bushice. And that doesn't even consider the policy decisions that can be made over the next five years...

Then again, lets hope they accounted for the 20,000 something wounded vets who will need care over and beyond that time frame.

So you have nothing but hyperbole.

Since they carefully choose to never bring up the number of war wounded, we won't really know until we hear the vets complaining of a lack of needed facilities and services.

It's posted on the DoD website, dipshit.

[Variable]

These vets live in a nursing home near Walter Reed. The feds plan on closing Walter Reed. Do a search for Cody et al. vs. Rumsfeld.

Errr...I knew that. :D

Seriously, I don't think the fed owes vets any more than death benefits for the family if you die while in service(they do), compensation for service-connected injuries(they do), training for a new job if you can't do the job the service trained you to do(they do), housing programs (they do) and money for college(they do). Beyond that, many states offer grants to veterans attending college, free or discounted tuition for vets, priority for government jobs to vets and a slew of other benefits. Sorry, but vets are generally very well taken care of in the USA.

[Mister Bushice]

Since they carefully choose to never bring up the number of war wounded, we won't really know until we hear the vets complaining of a lack of needed facilities and services.

It's posted on the DoD website, dipshit.

February 18, 2004-Combat veterans wounded in Iraq were left waiting weeks and even months for proper medical attention at military bases. According to an officer, their living conditions were so unacceptable for injured soldiers he said they "were being treated like dogs." Then the Pentagon underreported the number wounded.

The Bush administration, referring to veterans of the war in Iraq, told a House panel that they would avoid last year's "mistakes" of leaving sick and injured troops at U.S. bases to wait for months to be properly treated by doctors. Adding insult to injury, Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. James B. Peake told the House panel that he "was not aware" that last fall soldiers were waiting for medical care at U.S. bases and under substandard living conditions.

Wounded "treated like dogs"

Mark Benjamin’s investigative report on Oct. 20, 2003 for UPI, revealed that many wounded veterans from Iraq had to wait "weeks and months at places such as the Fort Stewart military base in Georgia, for proper medical help." They had been kept in living conditions that are "unacceptable for sick and injured soldiers." One officer characterized conditions for the wounded by saying, "They're being treated like dogs."

In January, 2004 Benjamin reported that the largest American troop rotation is now underway. Daniel Denning, assistant secretary of the Army, testified to the House Total Force Subcommittee, "We recognize that last fall, we temporarily lost sight of the situation. It is likely that during this period of force rotations, patient loads at some installations may exceed local capacity. The Army has developed a series of options to handle this surge."

Subcommittee chairman John McHugh, R-N.Y. said, "In October of last year a series of articles revealed that many mobilized Reserve and National Guard soldiers in a medical holdover status felt the Army was not treating them as equals to their active component counterparts. The articles described substandard living conditions at two Army posts in particular -- Fort Stewart, Ga., and Fort Knox, Ky. Many of the ill and injured soldiers interviewed at these posts reported having to wait for long periods of time -- sometimes weeks or months -- before receiving the medical care they needed."

More than 1,000 National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers at Fort Stewart and Fort Knox, including hundreds who had served in Iraq, had waited weeks or months in "medical hold" to be seen by doctors. At Fort Stewart in Georgia, they waited in hot concrete barracks with no air-conditioning or running water.

Sgt. Craig Allen LaChance, a soldier who was on medical hold at Fort Stewart, told the panel that it "took months to get appointments" with specialists while sick and injured soldiers waited in what he said were substandard barracks. "We lived in deplorable conditions," LaChance said. "We were made to feel like we had failed the Army."

Col. Keith Armstrong, garrison commander at Fort Knox, told the congressional committee "we were stretched pretty thin" last fall. Fort Stewart Garrison Commander Col. John M. Kidd said, "We recognized that we had some difficulty here. We recognized that we had a problem with medical hold." Both commanders said they had asked for help from the Army and both described it as slow in coming.

How many wounded?

Combat deaths were accurately reported, but according to an article in July, 2003 by Editor & Publisher Online and later in October by National Public Radio, the numbers of wounded, in and out of battle, were being underreported. The news media had accepted that the military high command kept the number of wounded from the American public. "There could be some inattention to [the number of injured troops]," answered Philip Bennett, assistant managing editor of the foreign desk at the Washington Post when questioned by E & P Online.

As American casualties increased during the summer of 2003, US military officials suppressed discussion of the total number wounded. Only by July 10, 2003, nearly four months after the invasion of Iraq had been launched, did CNN report that for "the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, Pentagon officials have released the number of US troops wounded from the beginning of the war through Wednesday [July 9, 2003]."

However, Seth Porges wrote in Editor & Publisher (10/23/03) that coverage of injured and wounded U.S. soldiers gets very little media attention. "For months, the press has barely mentioned non-fatal casualties or the severity of their wounds," writes Porges. "Few newspapers routinely report injuries in Iraq, beyond references to specific incidents. Since the war began in March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, many quite severely."

But newspapers neglected to report or keep a tally on the wounded, as an informal survey of some top papers has shown. This comes on the heels of reports that attacks on American troops in Iraq had increased in recent weeks from an average of 15 to 20 attacks per day to about 20 to 25 attacks a day, with a peak at about 35 attacks in one day, according to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

Julian Borger, writing in the British Guardian last August, cited the comments of Lieut. Col. Allen DeLane, in charge of airlifting injured GIs into Andrews Air Force Base near Washington.

According to Bolger, DeLane, who had already seen thousands of wounded flown in, told National Public Radio, in regard to the sharp increase in the number of US wounded last autumn, "the official number of combat wounded alone averaged nearly 100 a week between mid-September and mid-November (lunaville.org)." This made the resistance of the military to giving out accurate figures increasingly suspicious.

As the US media began to request injury figures, the Pentagon put up as much resistance as it could. In September, 2003, the Washington Post noted, "Although Central Command keeps a running total of the wounded, it releases the number only when asked" making the combat injuries of US troops in Iraq one of the untold stories in the war.

Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, had complained in September 2003 that he was unable to find out how many US soldiers had been wounded in Iraq because the administration refused to release this information.