Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

host · 09-06-2004, 09:28 PM

irateplatypus, I am sorry if my last post is "long", Bush's performance
demonstrates that people don't notice and don't care that he almost never holds press conferences, but does give "long", carefully scripted public
performances, where he never has to answer a spontaneous question. The Karl Rove powered Regime is easy to recognize as a fraud and a threat to Consitutionally guaranteed democracy....but I'll keep it shorter.....just some articles and links to counter your skepticism about Bush misleading on financial support of the Troops, and....after they are severely wounded, or simply discharged, the Veterans that the ulitmately become, and more
documentation about Bush asserting that 6 years as Texas guv qualified
him foor the Presidency, but Edward's six years in the Senate does not:
<a name="TOP"></a>July
02, 2003 
Editorial: Nothing but lip service 
 In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.
Incredibly, one of those tax provisions — easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home — has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.
The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.
The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.
All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill..............................

<a href="http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php">http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php</a>


Washington --
The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq,
who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120-
degree-plus heat.
Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns
after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan
will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent
danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."
The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain
the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts
have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even
prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for
military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.
Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002, but they
are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30 unless Congress
votes to keep them as part of its annual defense appropriations legislation.
Imminent danger pay, given to Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force members in
combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month. The family separation
allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other
expenses while soldiers are away, was raised from $100 a month to $250.
Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress an interim budget report saying the
extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories was costing about $25 million
more a month, or $300 million for a full year. In its "appeals package" laying
out its requests for cuts in pending congressional spending legislation,
Pentagon officials recommended returning to the old, lower rates of special
pay and said military experts would study the question of combat pay in coming
months.
<H3>WHITE HOUSE DUCKS ISSUE</H3>
A White House spokesman referred questions about the administration's view
on the pay cut to the Pentagon report.
Military families have started hearing about the looming pay reductions,
and many aren't happy................ <hr>
<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL</a>

<td colspan="4"><img src="images/spacer.gif" height="5" width="1"></td>
<td width="10" rowspan="10"><img src="images/spacer.gif" width="10" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
</tr>
<tr><td width="349" valign="top" colspan="4">VFW Terms President's VA Budget Proposal Harmful to Veterans VFW Appeals to Congress for Relief </td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="4">

Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2004--"The president ignored veterans in the State of the Union Address and with today's release of his 2005 budget, it is further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this administration," said the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., expressing dismay at the disgraceful 1.8% increase in veterans' medical care funding. "We look to Congress to reject the president's inadequate proposal and to provide a budget that fully acknowledges the debt our nation owes its veterans." VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas Sr., of Voluntown, Conn., said that with only a $500 million increase in medical funding, the administration's budget falls $2.6 billion short of what the Independent Budget recommends is needed to fully meet the demands for quality veterans' health care. "This funding package is a disgrace and a sham," Banas said. "This deplorable budget will do nothing to alleviate the many thousands of veterans who are waiting six months or more for basic health care appointments with VA. Instead, the budget seeks to drive veterans from the system by realigning funding, charging enrollment fees for access and more than doubling the prescription drug copayment. This is inexcusable, especially when no member of this administration or Congress would wait this long for their health care. "What the administration is proposing for veterans is a shell game. Veterans are being asked to pay for their own health care to make up for shortages in the budget. We are adamantly opposed to charging veterans an enrollment fee and we are opposed to increasing payments that veterans make for prescriptions and for other health care services, especially when millions of this nation's veterans are already locked out of the system," Banas said. "To ask this nation's veterans to subsidize their health care is outrageous. They have already paid for their health care with their sweat and with their blood. "This budget indefensibly will not meet the increasing health care needs of our veterans, nor will it lessen the many months they wait for disability benefits. "As our veteran population ages and service men and women return from Afghanistan and Iraq, we must have a system that meets the health care needs of all veterans. It is clear that, just as we fought on the battlefields, we must now bring the fight to the halls of Congress to rectify this disgraceful budget. Having traveled throughout the nation, I know that the American people will not tolerate this shoddy treatment of America's veterans, especially at a time of war," Banas said.


<a href="http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576"> http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
In the first Gore vs. Bush debate in October 2000, Bush said,"And he's got a lot of experience, but so do I. And I’ve been the chief executive officer of the second-biggest state in the union." At that time, Bush had served as
Texas Governor for less than 6 years.<a href="http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html">http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html</a>

I am trying to link sources that, if anything, could be presumed to be biased towards Bush. The armytimes.com and vfw.org, above, and the newspaper that has been accused of being a press organ of the White House,
the washingtontimes.com, is linked below. If your mind is open to comparing
more of Karl Rove propaganda politics 2004, vs. linked and presumably more
accurate information concerning Bush and Kerry, I'll post it on request:

"Mr. Bush was particularly terse when asked about how Vice President Dick Cheney will stack up against Mr. Edwards, who is retiring after this year, when his single term in the Senate ends.
"Dick Cheney can be president. Next?" the president said."
<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040708-121746-8980r">http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040708-121746-8980r<a/>
Bush's comments make it clear that he believes that 6 years in the U.S. Senate did not qualify Edwards to run for V.P., yet Bush is on record saying that his less than six years service as Texas Governor, who presides over
a part time legislature (meets 140 days, every two years, legislatures salary is
$7,200 year, qualified him in 2000 to run against Gore for the presidency!
<a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/robison/2735445">Gov. Schwarzenegger, take look at Texas for an answer</a>

09-06-2004, 09:28 PM	#36 (permalink)
host Banned	<br><br> <b>irateplatypus, I am sorry if my last post is "long", Bush's performance demonstrates that people don't notice and don't care that he almost never holds press conferences, but does give "long", carefully scripted public performances, where he never has to answer a spontaneous question. The Karl Rove powered Regime is easy to recognize as a fraud and a threat to Consitutionally guaranteed democracy....but I'll keep it shorter.....just some articles and links to counter your skepticism about Bush misleading on financial support of the Troops, and....after they are severely wounded, or simply discharged, the Veterans that the ulitmately become, and more documentation about Bush asserting that 6 years as Texas guv qualified him foor the Presidency, but Edward's six years in the Senate does not:</b> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1"><a name="TOP"></a>July 02, 2003</font><br> <font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="4"><b>Editorial: Nothing but lip service</b></font><br> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"></font><p></p> <font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="2">In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.<p> For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.<p> Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.<p> Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.<p> Incredibly, one of those tax provisions — easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home — has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.<p> The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.<p> The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.<p> All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill..............................<p> </font> <a href="http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php">http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php</a> <p> <font size="2" face="geneva,arial,sans-serif"> <p><strong>Washington</strong> -- The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat. <P>Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances." <P>The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken. <P>Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002, but they are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30 unless Congress votes to keep them as part of its annual defense appropriations legislation. <P>Imminent danger pay, given to Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force members in combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month. The family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other expenses while soldiers are away, was raised from $100 a month to $250. <P>Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress an interim budget report saying the extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories was costing about $25 million more a month, or $300 million for a full year. In its "appeals package" laying out its requests for cuts in pending congressional spending legislation, Pentagon officials recommended returning to the old, lower rates of special pay and said military experts would study the question of combat pay in coming months. <P><H3>WHITE HOUSE DUCKS ISSUE</H3> <P>A White House spokesman referred questions about the administration's view on the pay cut to the Pentagon report. <P>Military families have started hearing about the looming pay reductions, and many aren't happy................<br><hr></font> <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL</a> <p> <td colspan="4"><img src="images/spacer.gif" height="5" width="1"></td> <td width="10" rowspan="10"><img src="images/spacer.gif" width="10" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td> </tr> <tr><td width="349" valign="top" colspan="4"><span class="blueheader">VFW Terms President's VA Budget Proposal Harmful to Veterans <br> VFW Appeals to Congress for Relief</span><br><br></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="4"> <i>Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2004</i>--"The president ignored veterans in the State of the Union Address and with today's release of his 2005 budget, it is further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this administration," said the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., expressing dismay at the disgraceful 1.8% increase in veterans' medical care funding. "We look to Congress to reject the president's inadequate proposal and to provide a budget that fully acknowledges the debt our nation owes its veterans."<br><br>VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas Sr., of Voluntown, Conn., said that with only a $500 million increase in medical funding, the administration's budget falls $2.6 billion short of what the Independent Budget recommends is needed to fully meet the demands for quality veterans' health care. "This funding package is a disgrace and a sham," Banas said.<br><br>"This deplorable budget will do nothing to alleviate the many thousands of veterans who are waiting six months or more for basic health care appointments with VA. Instead, the budget seeks to drive veterans from the system by realigning funding, charging enrollment fees for access and more than doubling the prescription drug copayment. This is inexcusable, especially when no member of this administration or Congress would wait this long for their health care.<br><br>"What the administration is proposing for veterans is a shell game. Veterans are being asked to pay for their own health care to make up for shortages in the budget. We are adamantly opposed to charging veterans an enrollment fee and we are opposed to increasing payments that veterans make for prescriptions and for other health care services, especially when millions of this nation's veterans are already locked out of the system," Banas said. "To ask this nation's veterans to subsidize their health care is outrageous. They have already paid for their health care with their sweat and with their blood.<br><br>"This budget indefensibly will not meet the increasing health care needs of our veterans, nor will it lessen the many months they wait for disability benefits. <br><br>"As our veteran population ages and service men and women return from Afghanistan and Iraq, we must have a system that meets the health care needs of all veterans. It is clear that, just as we fought on the battlefields, we must now bring the fight to the halls of Congress to rectify this disgraceful budget. Having traveled throughout the nation, I know that the American people will not tolerate this shoddy treatment of America's veterans, especially at a time of war," Banas said. <p> <a href="http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576"> http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576</a> </td> </tr> </table> </td> <b>In the first Gore vs. Bush debate in October 2000, Bush said,"And he's got a lot of experience, but so do I. And I’ve been the chief executive officer of the second-biggest state in the union." At that time, Bush had served as Texas Governor for less than 6 years.</b><a href="http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html">http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html</a> <p> <b>I am trying to link sources that, if anything, could be presumed to be biased towards Bush. The armytimes.com and vfw.org, above, and the newspaper that has been accused of being a press organ of the White House, the washingtontimes.com, is linked below. If your mind is open to comparing more of Karl Rove propaganda politics 2004, vs. linked and presumably more accurate information concerning Bush and Kerry, I'll post it on request: <p> "Mr. Bush was particularly terse when asked about how Vice President Dick Cheney will stack up against Mr. Edwards, who is retiring after this year, when his single term in the Senate ends. "Dick Cheney can be president. Next?" the president said."</b> <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040708-121746-8980r">http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040708-121746-8980r<a/> <b>Bush's comments make it clear that he believes that 6 years in the U.S. Senate did not qualify Edwards to run for V.P., yet Bush is on record saying that his less than six years service as Texas Governor, who presides over a part time legislature (meets 140 days, every two years, legislatures salary is $7,200 year, qualified him in 2000 to run against Gore for the presidency!</b> <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/robison/2735445">Gov. Schwarzenegger, take look at Texas for an answer</a>