Seems like our Repug friends have a lot of hot air when it comes to supporting our vets, but are unwilling to put their $$$ where their mouths are.  Check this out.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050717/NEWS/507170411/1024/NEWS04

Seems like our Repug friends have a lot of hot air when it comes to supporting our vets, but are unwilling to put their $$$ where their mouths are.  Check this out.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050717/NEWS/507170411/1024/NEWS04

Say, I thought the war was supposed to be over by now!  Rumsfeld and the boys said we'd only be in Iraq for a few months, so the VA thinks they'll only need services for about 23,000 vet, an 80,000 person shortfall in retrospect.

Maybe if we had 80,000 vets marching on Washington and demanding what Uncle Sam owes 'em...nah, that's not patriotic!

Say, I thought the war was supposed to be over by now!  Rumsfeld and the boys said we'd only be in Iraq for a few months, so the VA thinks they'll only need services for about 23,000 vet, an 80,000 person shortfall in retrospect.

Maybe if we had 80,000 vets marching on Washington and demanding what Uncle Sam owes 'em...nah, that's not patriotic!


Sounds like the Bonus Army of the 1930's to me, and sounds like a good idea. 

Seems like our Repug friends have a lot of hot air when it comes to supporting our vets, but are unwilling to put their $$$ where their mouths are.  Check this out.


Historically, Veterans have always gotten the "s**ty end of the stick", along with those that are in uniform.

And this is not nessicarily political.  Every administration does the same thing.  I know of 1 guy in a Veteran facility that was having problems.  By the time he could get in for a checkup (6 months), it was discovered that he was in N-stage prostate cancer.  He died less then 3 months later.

This was in 2000, but the trend was made years earlier.  At the time President Clinton was proposing his "Social Health Care" system, he was closing VA and military hospitals all over the country.  Of the 4 hospitals and clinics I attended while I was in active duty, 3 are closed and 1 hadbeen cut back to almost nothing during his administration.  But guess what?  That is the way things are.  It sucks, but what can I do about it?

During times of conflict, people scream for the Military to save them.  Civil War, World War I, World War II.  Then once the conflict is over and the threat eliminated, it is back to "Dogs & Soldiers Keep Off The Grass".  Nobody cares about disabled veterans.  Oh, people claim they do, but they really don't.  I hardly heard anything when they closed half of the Veteran Facilities in Los Angeles in the 1990's.  When I needed to get evaluated in 1993, it was a 30 day wait.  When I needed to be re-evaluated in 2003, I was lucky to be seen in "only 90 days".

The VA started this decline I believe when the World War II generation started to die off.  That was the single largest group of Veterans in history.  As they died off, a lot of the political clout died with it.  In the 1950-1985 years, almost every politician had served in the military, or been closely attached to it.  Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhauer, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr.  All but 2 of these Presidents faught in World War II.  Trueman served with distinction in World War I, and FDR was Secretary Of The Navy during WWI.

And with fewer and fewer veterans in political office, I only see this shrinking.  And it does not matter who is in office, or what political party has control.  As long as people only pay lip service to Veterans, our benefits will continue to shrink.  I can only hope that the current generation of Service members can get the political clout in 10-30 years to reverse this trend.  The Korean & Vietnam era veterans sure did not get any.

I'm not a vet, and Mushroom is right, both parties have abandoned OUR obligation to our vets, but I think its an outrage no matter who does it.  our vets deserve better - in fact, they deserve the best, but tell our chicken-hawk "leaders" that.  I hate war, but I don't hate the warriors, I respect them.

I'm not a vet, and Mushroom is right, both parties have abandoned OUR obligation to our vets, but I think its an outrage no matter who does it.  our vets deserve better - in fact, they deserve the best, but tell our chicken-hawk "leaders" that.  I hate war, but I don't hate the warriors, I respect them.


This is not just a factor of this, or any other administration.  Clinton was no more interested in the welfare of Veterans then Bush is.  I think that the last President to ever put out a major effort was Regan.  He is the one that elevated the VA to the "Department Of Veterans Affairs", a cabinet level post.  Since then however, the budget every year has either stagnated or gone down for the most part.

And remember, this is a decision made at many levels, not just the President.  Congress actually has much more of a say in this then the President does.  The President can make a budget reccomendation, but it is Congress that actually makes the budget.  And Veteran projects are low in their "pork" benefit.  A new highway or civic center is much more influential to voters then the improvements to a VA facility, that only a handfull of them can actually use.

I tend to blame voter and public apathy more then anything else.  If a large number of people actually cared, then things would change.  But since most people do not care, nothing is said or done.  I got very helpfull feedback from my local representative in California, Congressman Howard P. "Buck" McKeon.  He has long been a supporter of Military and Veterans programs.  In fact, he was the one that was an outspoken critic of Sen. John Edwards when he tried to prevent the HEROS Act from being voted on in 2003.  (Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act was a proposal to allow deferments for repaying Stent Loans for Veterans serving overseas in combat areas.)  But Buck is 67, and is expected by many to step down at the end of his current term.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030703-120821-9382r.htm

What it all boils down to is that the "Veteran's Lobby" is one of the smallest and most ignored lobby in DC.  It does not matter which party holds office, or who controlls Congress.  Without any "Policital Clout", nobody cares.  After all, when did anybody in here write or call your local representatives when they cut back on veteran programs?  Who here complained when they took a "Veteran's Only" program, and opened it to the general public?  How many in here complained when a local VA center was cut back or closed?  Unless you are a veteran, I doubt if anybody in here did other then myself.  THAT is the real reason we "get the shaft".

Yup, Bush and the boys would love to help out the vets more if they could, but you know, their hands are tied by the bureaucracy. 

It reminds me of what the Russians used to say at the gulags...
"If only Comrade Stalin knew..."

Yup, Bush and the boys would love to help out the vets more if they could, but you know, their hands are tied by the bureaucracy. 

It reminds me of what the Russians used to say at the gulags...
"If only Comrade Stalin knew..."


Yea, like Clinton did a lot for us either.  Those hospitals and clinics he closed helped the veterans a lot.  So maybe if we get another Democrat, they will fix it?  Why not wake up and open your eyes.  It is simply an apathy problem, not attributable to either party, but to both parties!

Complaining that "Bush is cutting VA funding" when you look at what Clinton did is really "The pot calling the kettle black".  But of course, it is more fun to point fingers and place blame then it is to fix the problem.

Yea, like Clinton did a lot for us either.  Those hospitals and clinics he closed helped the veterans a lot.  So maybe if we get another Democrat, they will fix it?  Why not wake up and open your eyes.  It is simply an apathy problem, not attributable to either party, but to both parties!

Complaining that "Bush is cutting VA funding" when you look at what Clinton did is really "The pot calling the kettle black".  But of course, it is more fun to point fingers and place blame then it is to fix the problem.


Not to defend Clinton but there were a lot fewer vets during the Clinton Admin, and fewer needing the serious care the current crop needs.  And in the face of that, Bush DID recommend considerably less (over 100 Mil if memory serves) than the VA requested JUST TO MAINTAIN current levels of service.