PDA

View Full Version : George Bush loves the miliary


Mr. Laz
06-08-2007, 03:30 PM
1. Bush Administration cuts $1.5 billion from military family housing. The Bush Administration cut $1.5 billion for military family housing, despite Department of Defense statistics showing that in 83,000 barracks and 128,860 family housing units across the country are below standard. ("Nothing But Lip Service," Army Times, June 30, 2003; "House Appropriations Committee Approves $59.2 Million for Ft. Hood," U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards Press Release, June 17, 2003)

2. Bush Republicans support millionaires instead of military veterans. Bush allies in Congress stopped efforts to scale back the tax cut for the nation's millionaires by just five percent - a loss of just $4,780 for the year - in order to restore this funding for military family housing. ("The Tax Debate Nobody Hears About," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)

3. Bush Administration underfunded veterans' health care by $2 billion. The Bush Administration's 2004 budget underfunded veterans' health care by nearly $2 billion. ("Vets Health Low on Bush's Priority List," The Hill, September 17, 2003; "Support for Troops Questioned," Washington Post, June 17, 2003; U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs, September 2002)

4. Bush Administration proposal would end health care benefits for 173,000 veterans. More than 173,000 veterans across the country would be cut off from health care because of Bush Administration proposed budget cuts and its plan requiring enrollment fees and higher out-of-pocket costs. ("Support for Troops Questioned," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)

5. Bush Administration budget cuts force more than 200,000 veterans to wait for health care. Over 200,000 United States veterans have to wait more than six months for a medical visit because of health care shortages. ("VA Health Care Funding Alert," Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Press Release, January 31, 2003)

6. Bush Administration opposed plan to give National Guard and Reserve Members access to health insurance. Despite the war efforts of America's National Guard and Reserve Members, the Bush Administration announced in October 2003 its formal opposition to give the 1.2 million Guard and Reserve members the right to buy health care coverage through the Pentagon's health plan. One out of every five Guard members lacks health insurance. ("Bush Opposes Health Plan for National Guard," Gannett News Service, October 23, 2003)


7. Bush Administration cuts $172 million allotted for educating the children of military personnel. The Bush Administration's 2004 budget cut $172 million of impact aid funding. Impact aid funding assists school districts by making up for lost local tax revenue from tax-exempt property, such as military bases. These education cuts will especially affect school-age children of troops serving in Iraq who reside on military bases. ("Support for Troops Questioned," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)


8. Bush Administration tax cut denies military families increase in child tax credit. The families of 262,000 children of military personnel do not receive the child tax credit increase because the plan fails to cover taxpaying families with incomes between $10,500 and $26,625. According to The Washington Post, the House version of the Bush Administration plan "wouldn't help many of those serving in Iraq." One solider who will not benefit is Army Specialist Shoshana Johnson, the soldier and single mother who was wounded twice in the same convoy as Jessica Lynch. ("Ex-POW's Family Accuses Army of Double Standard on Benefit," Washington Post, October 24, 2003; "The New Senate Child Credit Legislation - What It Does and Does Not Do," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 25, 2003; "Whose Child Is Left Behind," Children's Defense Fund, July 23, 2003)


http://www.awolbush.com/

Logical
06-08-2007, 09:18 PM
This article is just sad. Worst thing is this part.
Bush Republicans support millionaires instead of military veterans. Bush allies in Congress stopped efforts to scale back the tax cut for the nation's millionaires by just five percent - a loss of just $4,780 for the year - in order to restore this funding for military family housing. ("The Tax Debate Nobody Hears About," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)
That is just F*cked UP!!!

Dallas Chief
06-08-2007, 11:11 PM
Do any of the line items listed above represent an overall decrease in the amount appropriated for these activies versus the previous year? It would really be a shame if that is the case.

PunkinDrublic
06-10-2007, 08:53 AM
Just shows how full of shit Bush and the neocons are when they talk about supporting the troops. They'll give a blank check to the war contractors though.

patteeu
06-10-2007, 12:40 PM
Its funny how some of the same guys who criticize this administration for big deficits lead the charge to criticize every cut in spending no matter what the merits of the argument are. You all make me laugh.

Bush is a failure because he hasn't figured out how to gold plate everything and eliminate the deficit at the same time. LMAO

Adept Havelock
06-10-2007, 12:51 PM
Its funny how some of the same guys who criticize this administration for big deficits lead the charge to criticize every cut in spending no matter what the merits of the argument are. You all make me laugh.

Bush is a failure because he hasn't figured out how to gold plate everything and eliminate the deficit at the same time. LMAO

It's almost as funny as your apparently unconcerned attitude towards budget cuts that (IMO) harm our troops and their families.

Almost.

This isn't dumping pork like the "Bridge to Nowhere". These are cuts that quite likely dramatically impact our soldiers lives. And not for the better, IMO.

Logical
06-10-2007, 09:05 PM
Its funny how some of the same guys who criticize this administration for big deficits lead the charge to criticize every cut in spending no matter what the merits of the argument are. You all make me laugh.

Bush is a failure because he hasn't figured out how to gold plate everything and eliminate the deficit at the same time. LMAOWhat is sad is the way you will dump anything no matter the morality if it will protect Bush/Chaney.

irishjayhawk
06-10-2007, 09:13 PM
Its funny how some of the same guys who criticize this administration for big deficits lead the charge to criticize every cut in spending no matter what the merits of the argument are. You all make me laugh.

Bush is a failure because he hasn't figured out how to gold plate everything and eliminate the deficit at the same time. LMAO

Although I agree with the previous posts, I think the real catch here is that if you're going to spend the money, at least give it to the right people.

patteeu
06-10-2007, 09:54 PM
It's almost as funny as your apparently unconcerned attitude towards budget cuts that (IMO) harm our troops and their families.

Almost.

This isn't dumping pork like the "Bridge to Nowhere". These are cuts that quite likely dramatically impact our soldiers lives. And not for the better, IMO.

It might sound silly to you, but I'd kind of like to hear the arguments for making these cuts before I come to a final conclusion on them. Some may trust awolbush.com as an unbiased source of information, but I'm not so sure.

patteeu
06-10-2007, 09:54 PM
What is sad is the way you will dump anything no matter the morality if it will protect Bush/Chaney.

What morality?

patteeu
06-10-2007, 09:56 PM
Although I agree with the previous posts, I think the real catch here is that if you're going to spend the money, at least give it to the right people.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Bush administration has spent many billions (probably trillions) of dollars on the wrong kinds of things (see their prescription drugs program for a huge example), but I'm not about to take this list at face value. There's always another side to the story and I'll reserve judgment on these bullet points until I hear it.

Logical
06-10-2007, 10:13 PM
What morality?So the interest of our soldiers and their families is not a morality issue for you patteeu?

patteeu
06-11-2007, 06:46 AM
So the interest of our soldiers and their families is not a morality issue for you patteeu?

You should know better than most that there is always more that can be done in terms of equipment and financial assistance for our soldiers and their families. Is money absolutely no object in this regard as far as you're concerned? Would there be a point at which you would draw a line? How could you justify that line? When you draw a line are you acting immorally?

Logical
06-11-2007, 02:05 PM
You should know better than most that there is always more that can be done in terms of equipment and financial assistance for our soldiers and their families. Is money absolutely no object in this regard as far as you're concerned? Would there be a point at which you would draw a line? How could you justify that line? When you draw a line are you acting immorally?

Easy I draw the line as spending a billion dollars a day of wasted money on the occupation of Iraq and not providing the support above for the military vets and their families. If we cannot afford to support those vets and the families we should not be creating more hardships with Iraq's occupation.

patteeu
06-11-2007, 04:27 PM
Easy I draw the line as spending a billion dollars a day of wasted money on the occupation of Iraq and not providing the support above for the military vets and their families. If we cannot afford to support those vets and the families we should not be creating more hardships with Iraq's occupation.

Isn't it immoral that you draw the line there. Surely the troops deserve even more than that. :shrug:

Logical
06-11-2007, 06:40 PM
Isn't it immoral that you draw the line there. Surely the troops deserve even more than that. :shrug:

OK I admit I don't follow what you are saying.

mlyonsd
06-11-2007, 08:56 PM
Easy I draw the line as spending a billion dollars a day of wasted money on the occupation of Iraq and not providing the support above for the military vets and their families. If we cannot afford to support those vets and the families we should not be creating more hardships with Iraq's occupation.

With that kind of logic we should never have engaged in WWII. I think a lot of families lost their main providers during it didn't they? With a lot of less government support.

Logical
06-11-2007, 09:11 PM
With that kind of logic we should never have engaged in WWII. I think a lot of families lost their main providers during it didn't they? With a lot of less government support.

I think you did not read the article, it was not restricted to supporting the families of our dead soldiers.