Published Mar 20, 2005
You are reading page 16 of Bush Administration Proposes Cut in Veteran Benefits
Ok if spending is increasing, is it enough to keep up?
If not, a decrease is actually being felt. If the Administration is not willing to increase spending to keep up w/needs, then it's not nearly enough
But I will concede: you make a great case as far as the Admininstration NOT decreasing spending. I get your point Kevin.
I will just leave the thread saying, if there is ONE vet "going without" anything he/she needs, who is rightfully eligible, it's not nearly enough and it's wrong.
Amen to that!
And you seem to have forgotten, the President has to sign on the budget bill. And that he has line item veto. And that he makes his desire and spending level known to the members of Congress. If one is going to give a civic's lesson, please give it in it entirety. Federal spending is controled by two of our three branchs of government. And since both are of the same party, excuses are rather lame.Grannynurse :balloons:
So are Supreme Court appointees, declarations of war, and funding for the wars so declared.
.....You can't pick which ones you want to be responsible for depending of pulic opinion polls afterwards. They are all accountable collectively.
EricTAMUCC-BSN, BSN, RN
well if the glove fits...
I don't believe I've "over dramatized" my experiences. Been pretty matter of fact about it. As to you "feeling guilty," well I can't make you feel that way. Perhaps you have some reason to feel guilty? Perhaps its that you feel a need to slight those who had the courage to do things you wouldn't/couldn't do?Kevin McHugh
Please tell me how Bush has increased or even maintained the current rate of expenditures to vets and/or the vet system. He has not. In fact, he has reduced spending. That is not bashing, that is stating a fact.Grannynurse :balloons:
look up the budget programs, they have grown greater under this administration than under Monica Lewinsky's boyfriend's administration. Not one cut has taken place. Even funding for PBS was restored. Get your facts straight please
The president does not have a line item veto was declared unconstitutional several years shortly after Clinton started his second term. Once again get your facts correct. Please just even use google and get your facts right
Excuse me, but neither my father, nor my brother nor I were promised having our medical care provided for, by the VA system. All three of us were promised life time medical care, in a military hospital or a civilian one if the military one was not within a reasonable distance. And the problem with access started back in the 80s, not 1993. And not under Clinton but under Reagen. It has always been an issue with career military, of promises made and not kept. Bush has never had to fight a day in his life. And he doe not have the foggest idea of what it is like to be career military. My family does. He talks the talk. Too bad he doesn't know the walk.Gtannynurse :balloons:
So you don't have tricare? Are you actually retired from the military or discharged for another set of reasons?
sirI, MSN, APRN, NP
Please Refrain From Personal Attacks. Let's Keep This Civil.
grannynurse FNP student
I resigned my commission after six years of service, for personal reasons. And no, neither my father nor I were promised Tricare. We were promised care via the military hospital system. Fortunately, my father got to be a double dipper, collecting his military pension and working for the federal civil service. And receiving health care insurance thru them, until he die.
Which glove is it that fits, Eric? Overdramatizing my experiences, or sniping at people who did that which others were afraid to do?
Ok if spending is increasing, is it enough to keep up?If not, a decrease is actually being felt. If the Administration is not willing to increase spending to keep up w/needs, then it's not nearly enoughBut I will concede: you make a great case as far as the Admininstration NOT decreasing spending. I get your point Kevin.I will just leave the thread saying, if there is ONE vet "going without" anything he/she needs, who is rightfully eligible, it's not nearly enough and it's wrong.
Excellent points, all. In fact, I agree with everything you put in this post. However, what has yet to be demonstrated anywhere is one vet who is going without treatment to which they are rightfully eligible.
And just to back up Hoop Jumper:
"WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 25) -- The line-item veto is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court decided Thursday, ruling that Congress did not have the authority to hand that power to the president.
The 6-3 ruling said that the Constitution gives a president only two choices: either sign legislation or send it back to Congress. The 1996 line-item veto law allowed the president to pencil out specific spending items approved by the Congress."
For the full story, see the following link:
Found after an 8 second search of Yahoo. Would have been quicker, but initial search contained a typo.
By using the site, you agree with our Policies. X