NationStates Jolt Archive

A recent statement by the head of the DNC regarding reductions in the most recent budget allotment for veteran's benefits has a lot of inflammatory potential, but does not provide a complete picture of the situation.
What was being touted in this statement as a lack of support for veterans by the Bush administration does not take into account the decrease in number of WWII veterans due to the demise of its members.
The death rate of WWII veterans is now reported at 1,000 a day, so with this dynamic in mind there would be a decrease in the need for funding.
In addition, just as the rest of the medical world has had to rethink its cost structure and strategy, the structure of veteran only hospitals is being reconfigured to more efficiently and economically meet the needs of a declining population.

A recent statement by the head of the DNC regarding reductions in the most recent budget allotment for veteran's benefits has a lot of inflammatory potential, but does not provide a complete picture of the situation.
What was being touted in this statement as a lack of support for veterans by the Bush administration does not take into account the decrease in number of WWII veterans due to the demise of its members.
The death rate of WWII veterans is now reported at 1,000 a day, so with this dynamic in mind there would be a decrease in the need for funding.
In addition, just as the rest of the medical world has had to rethink its cost structure and strategy, the structure of veteran only hospitals is being reconfigured to more efficiently and economically meet the needs of a declining population.

Redneck...on this issue...we may split...I've been to more then my fair share of VA hospitals in the last 30 yrs..I'll agree they need to be reconfigured..remodeled and upgraded is more what I'm thinking...30 yrs ago...they needed more psychiatric services for us Vietnam vets who were coming back screwed up moreso then when we left..the WW2 generation is dying yes..but geriatric services are nowhere near where they need to be..

The types of doctors we typically get are young idealistic types who eventually leave because they can make more money in private practice or older ones who probably should have retired and given up their stethascopes...Hospitals are in dismal states...some of them in brick buildings built following WW2...patients shuffled from one dept to another just to get a bed..

I once checked into a VA with an appointment, there were 3 blocks of patients, all of us told to report in at 0730hrs...they had just 1 doctor there who all he did was just take vitals before we were sent up to whatever dept we were to go to...it was 3pm before I was seen...and that was before I got to my audiologist. (I have hearing aids)..

Now..is it all gloom and doom..nope...there are some cities with outstanding facilities and great doctors...but this is not the norm unfortunately..

Redneck...on this issue...we may split...I've been to more then my fair share of VA hospitals in the last 30 yrs..I'll agree they need to be reconfigured..remodeled and upgraded is more what I'm thinking...30 yrs ago...they needed more psychiatric services for us Vietnam vets who were coming back screwed up moreso then when we left..the WW2 generation is dying yes..but geriatric services are nowhere near where they need to be..

The types of doctors we typically get are young idealistic types who eventually leave because they can make more money in private practice or older ones who probably should have retired and given up their stethascopes...Hospitals are in dismal states...some of them in brick buildings built following WW2...patients shuffled from one dept to another just to get a bed..

I once checked into a VA with an appointment, there were 3 blocks of patients, all of us told to report in at 0730hrs...they had just 1 doctor there who all he did was just take vitals before we were sent up to whatever dept we were to go to...it was 3pm before I was seen...and that was before I got to my audiologist. (I have hearing aids)..

Now..is it all gloom and doom..nope...there are some cities with outstanding facilities and great doctors...but this is not the norm unfortunately..

Salishe, Actually, I don't think we're split on this issue.
I appreciate the frustration that you've gone through in the VA system. I spent a lot of time when I was younger accompanying my Dad on his visits to the VA and it's just as you write.

The veteran medical system has been broken for a long time though.
My point was the DNC is trying to paint the Bush administration as abandoning Veterans on the basis of a reduction in budget dollars that would be earmarked for veterans as stipend payments and not related to medical benefits. Given the sorry state of many VA hospitals, I think that an overhaul of the system is desperately needed and the inefficiencies in the way it's being run today has the potential to save $$.

The questions I guess I have for you are ...

Do you believe the Bush administration is not providing the same level of support demonstrated by previous administrations?
Do you feel that a Kerry administration will offer veterans more support?

The point I was trying to make is the importance of getting more of the picture before jumping on the attack GW wagon. Although he and his administration have had their faults, we don't need the DNC to cloud the issues any further than has already been ably done by the much of the media coverage over the past year.

dp

[quote=Redneck Geeks]
Redneck...on this issue...we may split...I've been to more then my fair share of VA hospitals in the last 30 yrs..I'll agree they need to be reconfigured..remodeled and upgraded is more what I'm thinking...30 yrs ago...they needed more psychiatric services for us Vietnam vets who were coming back screwed up moreso then when we left..the WW2 generation is dying yes..but geriatric services are nowhere near where they need to be..

The types of doctors we typically get are young idealistic types who eventually leave because they can make more money in private practice or older ones who probably should have retired and given up their stethascopes...Hospitals are in dismal states...some of them in brick buildings built following WW2...patients shuffled from one dept to another just to get a bed..

I once checked into a VA with an appointment, there were 3 blocks of patients, all of us told to report in at 0730hrs...they had just 1 doctor there who all he did was just take vitals before we were sent up to whatever dept we were to go to...it was 3pm before I was seen...and that was before I got to my audiologist. (I have hearing aids)..

Now..is it all gloom and doom..nope...there are some cities with outstanding facilities and great doctors...but this is not the norm unfortunately..

Salishe, Actually, I don't think we're split on this issue.
I appreciate the frustration that you've gone through in the VA system. I spent a lot of time when I was younger accompanying my Dad on his visits to the VA and it's just as you write.

The veteran medical system has been broken for a long time though.
My point was the DNC is trying to paint the Bush administration as abandoning Veterans on the basis of a reduction in budget dollars that would be earmarked for veterans as stipend payments and not related to medical benefits. Given the sorry state of many VA hospitals, I think that an overhaul of the system is desperately needed and the inefficiencies in the way it's being run today has the potential to save $$.

The questions I guess I have for you are ...

Do you believe the Bush administration is not providing the same level of support demonstrated by previous administrations? The same level?, ironic..we've had the same sorry state of affairs since Korea, and this support has come from Democratic as well as Republican administrations, although Kennedy tended to be an exception to the rule.

Do you feel that a Kerry administration will offer veterans more support?
No..I am under no delusions that we vets will get any more support from Kerry then we did under Bush...if any...we'll get less of the pie, as Democrats have typically been big spenders in social services issues while Reps have been more frugal with spending in these areas.

The point I was trying to make is the importance of getting more of the picture before jumping on the attack GW wagon. Although he and his administration have had their faults, we don't need the DNC to cloud the issues any further than has already been ably done by the much of the media coverage over the past year.

Might want to check out this link to see exactly what Kerry proposes for Veterans.

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/

Also, here's an interesting interview with John Hurley, Viet Nam vet and National Director of Veterans for Kerry. He describes the exact differences vet's can expect under Kerry.

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=741

The same level?, ironic..we've had the same sorry state of affairs since Korea, and this support has come from Democratic as well as Republican administrations, although Kennedy tended to be an exception to the rule.
Very good point ... there hasn't been much support period over the past 40 years.



Do you feel that a Kerry administration will offer veterans more support?
No..I am under no delusions that we vets will get any more support from Kerry then we did under Bush...if any...we'll get less of the pie, as Democrats have typically been big spenders in social services issues while Reps have been more frugal with spending in these areas.

Agreed ... see we weren't split at all! :D

Might want to check out this link to see exactly what Kerry proposes for Veterans.

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/

Berk ... thanks for the link, but what this provides is more campaign rhetoric rather than specifics on how Kerry proposes to do what is listed in his plan bullets. In other words ... where is the funding going to come from?
Revamping the system is a necessity that is not mentioned.

Do you feel that a Kerry administration will offer veterans more support?He is a veteran, so he has a vested interest in doing so...


Anyway, here are just 2 of 9 of Kerry's plans for veterans (these are the two pertaining to healthcare)


Priorities for America's Veterans
Provide Mandatory Funding of Veterans Health Care
The Bush Administration chronically under-funds VA health care. Instead of adding sufficient resources to a system desperately in need of them, President Bush has frozen whole classes out of the VA system. By the Bush Administration’s own estimate, their policies will exclude approximately 500,000 veterans from the VA healthcare system by 2005. President Bush also proposed increasing fees and co-payments in an effort to shift the burden for care onto the backs of veterans and drive an additional million veterans from the system. John Kerry will end the game of playing politics with funding for veterans health care. He will insist on mandatory funding for veterans health care. In a Kerry Administration, veterans will get the appointments they need with VA doctors and the federal government will invest the resources necessary to make sure that no veteran has an unmet health care need.

Grant Full Concurrent Receipt to Disabled Military Retirees
John Kerry believes military retirees who have a service-connected disability should receive both military retired pay and disability compensation. Currently, military retirees are required to pay for their own disabilities because every dollar in VA disability compensation they receive is deducted from their military retirement pay. No other category of federal employee is subject to this kind of unfairness and it must stop. Yet the Bush administration has turned its back on veterans. John Kerry believes there are plenty of places to cut back in government – but disabled vets are not one of them. As president, he will provide full concurrent receipt.

Might want to check out this link to see exactly what Kerry proposes for Veterans.

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/

Berk ... thanks for the link, but what this provides is more campaign rhetoric rather than specifics on how Kerry proposes to do what is listed in his plan bullets. In other words ... where is the funding going to come from?
Revamping the system is a necessity that is not mentioned.Thats Kerry's tax plan you should check out then, repealing the tax cuts that Bush made and reinstating the estate tax (the "death tax" or the "we're coming for your children tax" as conservatives like to call it).

Thats Kerry's tax plan you should check out then, repealing the tax cuts that Bush made and reinstating the estate tax (the "death tax" or the "we're coming for your children tax" as conservatives like to call it).

Oh, the death tax? How quaint. You mean the one of course that only applies to millionares? The one that the RNC portrayed as destroying family farms when it simply doesn't apply to them?

Yeah--a lot of what any President will be able to do for veterans or any other group is determined by the fiscal health of the federal government, and one ppoint that's not been loudly trumpeted about is that the Bush administration has already stated that they're going to have to institute major budget cuts in social services by 2006--services that military families and veterans often take advantage of in combination with their VA benefits.

Honestly, I'm not trying to turn this into another attack on Bush, so here's my point spelled out plainly. If we as a nation want to provide services for our veterans, for our elderly, for the least among us, as well as take care of our other major responsibilities--defense, security, infrastructure construction to name a few--then we've got to pay for them. That takes taxes.

Now if you want to argue that we shold do away with social services or some of the other functions that government currently handles, fine. We can debate that. But we can't continue to act like we can do everything and pay for nothing, which is what our current tax system seems to think is the case.

I'm all in favor of increasing benefits for disabled veterans and their families. Even if I disagree with the wars they fought in, they fought--it's not the corporal's fault that the SecDef is an asshole--and they deserve the care of the nation they fought for. But the money's got to come from somewhere.

Well, RG, the reason I posted the links was because people constantly complain about political discourse and how we don't do anything but attack either candidate. I didn't want to "attack" Bush's record in this thread so I tried to find something productive rather than reductive.

He will insist on mandatory funding for veterans health care. In a Kerry Administration, veterans will get the appointments they need with VA doctors and the federal government will invest the resources necessary to make sure that no veteran has an unmet health care need.

How's he going to get the funding?


Grant Full Concurrent Receipt to Disabled Military Retirees
John Kerry believes military retirees who have a service-connected disability should receive both military retired pay and disability compensation. Currently, military retirees are required to pay for their own disabilities because every dollar in VA disability compensation they receive is deducted from their military retirement pay. No other category of federal employee is subject to this kind of unfairness and it must stop. Yet the Bush administration has turned its back on veterans. John Kerry believes there are plenty of places to cut back in government – but disabled vets are not one of them. As president, he will provide full concurrent receipt.

Is this a practice just begun by the Bush administration or has it been in effect previously?
Again, how's Kerry going to get the funding for this?

RG--there's only one way to fund programs like this and I've already mentioned it--taxes have to go up, and they have to go up the most on people who make the most--people making over $200K a year.

We've got a choice--we can either have services for veterans (or social services in general) or we can have lower taxes. We can't have both. Supply-side economics has been tried now twice and it's failed miserably both times.

RG--there's only one way to fund programs like this and I've already mentioned it--taxes have to go up, and they have to go up the most on people who make the most--people making over $200K a year.

We've got a choice--we can either have services for veterans (or social services in general) or we can have lower taxes. We can't have both. Supply-side economics has been tried now twice and it's failed miserably both times.

Why do taxes need to be raised?
Why can't spending be cut -- deeply ?
Do away with all pork, many govt agencies and departments (energy, education, ...), reduce welfare programs to those that TRULY need them.

Supply side has never REALLY been tried in this country. It always gets hindered by big govt.

He will insist on mandatory funding for veterans health care. In a Kerry Administration, veterans will get the appointments they need with VA doctors and the federal government will invest the resources necessary to make sure that no veteran has an unmet health care need.

How's he going to get the funding?


Grant Full Concurrent Receipt to Disabled Military Retirees
John Kerry believes military retirees who have a service-connected disability should receive both military retired pay and disability compensation. Currently, military retirees are required to pay for their own disabilities because every dollar in VA disability compensation they receive is deducted from their military retirement pay. No other category of federal employee is subject to this kind of unfairness and it must stop. Yet the Bush administration has turned its back on veterans. John Kerry believes there are plenty of places to cut back in government – but disabled vets are not one of them. As president, he will provide full concurrent receipt.

Is this a practice just begun by the Bush administration or has it been in effect previously?
Again, how's Kerry going to get the funding for this?As I explained in my post about how Kerry is going to get the funding

Thats Kerry's tax plan you should check out then, repealing the tax cuts that Bush made and reinstating the estate tax (the "death tax" or the "we're coming for your children tax" as conservatives like to call it).

Do away with all pork, many govt agencies and departments (energy, education, ...), reduce welfare programs to those that TRULY need them.Yeah, energy and education... they aren't important. And having more people deeper in poverty is the way to give the economy the kickstart it needs to get out of a trillion dollar deficit

Supply side has never REALLY been tried in this country. It always gets hindered by big govt.God, that reminds me of the best part of Franken's book. The Supply Side Jesus cartoon strip.

"Shouldn't you feed the lepers Supply Side Jesus?"
"No Thomas, that would just make them lazy"
"Then shouldn't you at least heal them Supply Side Jesus?"
"No James. Leprosy is a matter of personal responsibility. If people knew I was healing lepers, there would be no insentive for them to avoid leprosy"

Since when did energy and education become "pork"? Sounds like the VA should be chalked up as "pork" too, under those ideals. :roll:

Do away with all pork, many govt agencies and departments (energy, education, ...), reduce welfare programs to those that TRULY need them.Yeah, energy and education... they aren't important. And having more people deeper in poverty is the way to give the economy the kickstart it needs to get out of a trillion dollar deficit

I picked energy and education as two examples, because they are worthless at the federal level, other than to supply a couple 1000 people with govt jobs.

Oh yeah, we need to deal with the deficit, too. Better add some more departments to my list.

I don't think you'd care for the govt I want to see. It would be about the size that it was when our forefathers started. Back then, there were NO income taxes, and the govt did just fine.

But this thread isn't really about all that, it started over the statement that was made by the DNC that I feel was deliberately misleading.

Do away with all pork, many govt agencies and departments (energy, education, ...), reduce welfare programs to those that TRULY need them.Yeah, energy and education... they aren't important. And having more people deeper in poverty is the way to give the economy the kickstart it needs to get out of a trillion dollar deficit

I picked energy and education as two examples, because they are worthless at the federal level, other than to supply a couple 1000 people with govt jobs.

Oh yeah, we need to deal with the deficit, too. Better add some more departments to my list.

I don't think you'd care for the govt I want to see. It would be about the size that it was when our forefathers started. Back then, there were NO income taxes, and the govt did just fine.

Yeah, the government did fine. But there was even more class division than there is nowadays, no police, medical services or firefighters, education was reserved for a select few, people were dying of polio and smallpox, crossing the country took months by wagon track instead of hours by plane or a couple of days by federal highways... you getting a picture? On the plus side, there was less pollution and more buffalo back then, thats definately a good thing... but then that won't be helped much by supply side economics either, so...

But this thread isn't really about all that, it started over the statement that was made by the DNC that I feel was deliberately misleading.

Everything in politics is misleading, its to distract you from the fact that year on year you're choosing between the lesser of of two who-gives-a-damns.

Your title should have been "Take anything that any politician says with a pinch of salt."

To the initial poster: Yes, the WWII vet population is dwindling. But you fail to take into account the influx of Vietnam era vets, several who are developing health problems due to age. You also fail to take into account the new mass influx of Gulf War vets who have health problems that the medical community has had difficulty getting under grips. The DNC was not being facetious in their statements.

Do I believe Kerry will provide better funding? I sure do, given how the Bush Administration has done what it can to scale back funding. It angers me to no end that people point out how much more money is being spent on the mililtary now but fail to point out where it is being spent. We're spending money on idiotic laser defense systems that don't work and are a violation of international treaties and then on private contractors who turn around to bilk the American taxpayer by fraudulently billing for services rendered. In the meantime, the military and the VA suffer from the funding formulas.

The VA system is decaying. It needs a significant overhaul with updated facilities and a better registration system. It is a swirling morass of paperwork, regulations, counterregs, and rules that make no sense. Buildings are archaic and outdated and staff turnover is extremely high. But as long as politics is involved in the overhaul of the system, NOTHING will ever get done. No congressman wants to go back to their constituents and talk about a VA hospital closing in their district. No state wants to give up what it already has, despite that they might get better service if they did. So what ends up happening is the key states for elections get what they want and the powerful Congressional leaders get what they want for their districts and the rest of the country suffers under the same situation. An overhaul is needed, but only if its done by a non-partisan group that has veterans and not political interests in mind. As long as this is an election issue, nothing will ever change for the better, no matter who is elected.

As my dad says, you can throw money on a fire all day long and at the end of the day you still only have a fire.

Anyone ever seen the movie Article 99?

But you fail to take into account the influx of Vietnam era vets, several who are developing health problems due to age. You also fail to take into account the new mass influx of Gulf War vets who have health problems that the medical community has had difficulty getting under grips.
The DNC was not being facetious in their statements.


A total of 16 million Americans served in WWII. There are approximately 4 million alive today
The VA latest estimates are that these vets are dying at a rate of 33,000 per month, so while I do agree that there will be an influx of vets, it will not be to the degree that we're losing vets. The way in which the DNC presented their statement has the potential to mislead since there was no acknowledgment of details of the budget adjustments and associated reasons.


Do I believe Kerry will provide better funding? I sure do, given how the Bush Administration has done what it can to scale back funding. It angers me to no end that people point out how much more money is being spent on the mililtary now but fail to point out where it is being spent. We're spending money on idiotic laser defense systems that don't work and are a violation of international treaties and then on private contractors who turn around to bilk the American taxpayer by fraudulently billing for services rendered. In the meantime, the military and the VA suffer from the funding formulas.
Ultimately though, isn't any social or other type of entitlement program doomed by the very nature of big government and its inefficiencies?


The VA system is decaying. It needs a significant overhaul with updated facilities and a better registration system. It is a swirling morass of paperwork, regulations, counterregs, and rules that make no sense. Buildings are archaic and outdated and staff turnover is extremely high. But as long as politics is involved in the overhaul of the system, NOTHING will ever get done. No congressman wants to go back to their constituents and talk about a VA hospital closing in their district. No state wants to give up what it already has, despite that they might get better service if they did. So what ends up happening is the key states for elections get what they want and the powerful Congressional leaders get what they want for their districts and the rest of the country suffers under the same situation. An overhaul is needed, but only if its done by a non-partisan group that has veterans and not political interests in mind. As long as this is an election issue, nothing will ever change for the better, no matter who is elected.

As my dad says, you can throw money on a fire all day long and at the end of the day you still only have a fire.
This much we can agree on! Why didn't you start off with this argument to begin with? The DNC statement is clouding the real issue with their spin of the preliminary budget allotments.


Anyone ever seen the movie Article 99?

No, what's it about?

Yeah, the government did fine. But there was even more class division than there is nowadays, no police, medical services or firefighters, education was reserved for a select few, people were dying of polio and smallpox, crossing the country took months by wagon track instead of hours by plane or a couple of days by federal highways... you getting a picture? On the plus side, there was less pollution and more buffalo back then, thats definately a good thing... but then that won't be helped much by supply side economics either, so...

An important point to keep in mind is that the majority of social programs put in place were meant to be on a limited basis i.e. New Deal and Great Society related, and not become the self-perpetuating, leech-like organisms that they've become.


Everything in politics is misleading, its to distract you from the fact that year on year you're choosing between the lesser of of two who-gives-a-damns.

Your title should have been "Take anything that any politician says with a pinch of salt."

Agreed that politicians are the root of many evils ... the reason why I singled out the DNC's statement is because of the timing - Memorial Day weekend - and the degree to which it was geared to generate emotions and not present all of the facts regarding the situation.

Well, RG, the reason I posted the links was because people constantly complain about political discourse and how we don't do anything but attack either candidate. I didn't want to "attack" Bush's record in this thread so I tried to find something productive rather than reductive.

Berk, do you feel that the DNC really presented the whole picture in this circumstance?

I appreciate the method as far as posting the link ... actually it generates more questions than answers as far as Kerry's plan of action, so it's not such a bad thing really :)

"Take Statements by the DNC with a Grain of Salt"

Just a quick comment..... I agree, never take any thing at face value.. But you can assume to take every thing the RNC says as an absolute LIE! There is more then enough evidence to support they wouldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it.. and many American lives did depend on it.. and yet they're still lying.. So, I say any one parroting the RNC party line should also be taken with a grain of salt.

Article 99 is a movie about a Veterans Hospital and the problems the doctors have to go through to administer health care. I remember seeing it after my active duty was over with and thinking that there was no way I'd ever go to a VA hospital if it were anything like that.

"Take Statements by the DNC with a Grain of Salt"

Just a quick comment..... I agree, never take any thing at face value.. But you can assume to take every thing the RNC says as an absolute LIE! There is more then enough evidence to support they wouldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it.. and many American lives did depend on it.. and yet they're still lying.. So, I say any one parroting the RNC party line should also be taken with a grain of salt.Damn straight. I mean, if we want to talk misleading in politics, how about the 'Kerry is against military funding' "evidence"? The one that deliberately misrepresents the candidate on every single point.

The fact in this case is that although the DNC possibly did misrepresent the facts here, Bush is slashing money from a system which needs it badly. The fact that their demand is going down is almost inconsequential, as even though it is, they still won't have enough money.

"Take Statements by the DNC with a Grain of Salt"

Just a quick comment..... I agree, never take any thing at face value.. But you can assume to take every thing the RNC says as an absolute LIE! There is more then enough evidence to support they wouldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it.. and many American lives did depend on it.. and yet they're still lying.. So, I say any one parroting the RNC party line should also be taken with a grain of salt.Damn straight. I mean, if we want to talk misleading in politics, how about the 'Kerry is against military funding' "evidence"? The one that deliberately misrepresents the candidate on every single point.

The fact in this case is that although the DNC possibly did misrepresent the facts here, Bush is slashing money from a system which needs it badly. The fact that their demand is going down is almost inconsequential, as even though it is, they still won't have enough money.

Not to mention Redneck Geeks argument about dying WWII vets doesn't hold much water.. America is at WAR! A war that the hawks in Washington have said will last years... you don't think that as WWII vets die off, more aren't being added to the bunch daily? It's a weak argument and was simply an excuse to try and spin the reality of the situation.. Just like the RNC have been spinning Kerry's record from day one with no end in sight.

Not to mention Redneck Geeks argument about dying WWII vets doesn't hold much water.. America is at WAR! A war that the hawks in Washington have said will last years... you don't think that as WWII vets die off, more aren't being added to the bunch daily? It's a weak argument and was simply an excuse to try and spin the reality of the situation.. Just like the RNC have been spinning Kerry's record from day one with no end in sight.

Steph, respectfully there is no way that the rate at which new vets will be added will ever come anywhere near the number of vets that have and will continue to succumb from these ranks. Look at the numbers ...
16 million served in WWII and the system was equipped/allocated to administer to that initial group. We're now at 4 million surviving WWII vets with the rate decreasing by 33,000 a month, so there's no way that amount would come anywhere near being matched by the number of current war vets.
The point the DNC really should have made was the need to revamp this system ... actually privitization would be the best way to go with this as well as the social program administration nightmare.
Instead of coming up with the entire picture and an approach that would be innovative (and politically risky), the DNC in this instance went the route of adding salt to a wound -- another reason for the title.
Statements by the RNC should also be weighed in regards to the entire picture ... the reason I mentioned the DNC was the timing of their statement as well as the blatantness with which crucial aspects of the situation were not being shared.

DP

What's the DNC?

What's the DNC?

The Democratic National Committee

Well, RG, the reason I posted the links was because people constantly complain about political discourse and how we don't do anything but attack either candidate. I didn't want to "attack" Bush's record in this thread so I tried to find something productive rather than reductive.

Berk, do you feel that the DNC really presented the whole picture in this circumstance?

I appreciate the method as far as posting the link ... actually it generates more questions than answers as far as Kerry's plan of action, so it's not such a bad thing really :)

I think, rather like Steph said, you can't take anything at face value. However, you have to start to accumulate information somewhere. A reasonable venue to start is with the source itself. If I was interested in finding out more about George W. Bush's specific policies, I would start my research with statements endorsed and coming directly from the man himself. So to with Kerry. You were making all sorts of allegations and assumptions, but had no specific information regarding Kerry's intents. So I thought I would provide you a place to start gathering information. Of course it's biased, just as anything coming out of GWB or the RNC is going to be biased.

no need to spin Kerry's record. just repeating his votes on legislation will do him all the harm needed.

I think, rather like Steph said, you can't take anything at face value. However, you have to start to accumulate information somewhere. A reasonable venue to start is with the source itself. If I was interested in finding out more about George W. Bush's specific policies, I would start my research with statements endorsed and coming directly from the man himself. So to with Kerry. You were making all sorts of allegations and assumptions, but had no specific information regarding Kerry's intents. So I thought I would provide you a place to start gathering information. Of course it's biased, just as anything coming out of GWB or the RNC is going to be biased.

Ok Berk ... don't be making assumptions about my assumptions :)

I didn't present any allegations or assumptions against Kerry in my post. My concern was about the way the DNC was spinning veterans affairs right before Memorial Day and the danger of the public relying on these sound bites versus getting more of the story.
I understand that the RNC is just as capable of the spin that was evidenced here ... this one hit a nerve with me.

So, what information have you gathered about what specifically Kerry would do if given the opportunity?

Ok Berk ... don't be making assumptions about my assumptions :)



Fair enough. I'm sorry if I worded my post vaugely or made incorrect assumptions.


So, what information have you gathered about what specifically Kerry would do if given the opportunity?

Fair enough again. Let me tell you what I learned from my research on this topic.

First, from general knowledge. Regardless of his eventual stance on the war in Viet Nam, he did volunteer to serve and served well, as is evidenced by his Silver Star, Bronze Star, three Purple Hearts and slew of other citations and awards. In comparison with Bush's checkered to say the least military service record (which I won't address in depth here), this seems to indicate that Kerry may have a more practical understanding of military issues and procedures.

Second, past actions in the Senate. According to his issue paper on Veterans (
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/veterans-issues.pdf[/ur]), Kerry has worked to find POWs and MIAs from Viet Nam, sought treatment and compensation dollars for those affected by Agent Orange and accumulate knowledge about the mysterious "Gulf War" syndrome. This argues that he still cares about these issues, at least to an exent.

Third, future plans. From the same issues paper, Kerry proposes the following:

1. "Protection and Expansion of VA benefits"--In contrast to the current administration, Kerry insteads to work to ensure veterans of any and all wars receive the benefits they were promised as well as improved access to perscription drugs and a more efficient processing of patients so those with health issues aren't waiting 3 to 6 months to see their doctors.

2. "Research, Compensation and Treatment for War-Related Illnesses"--Kerry's past Senate initiatives support his pledge for futher support of this issue.

3. "Increase Military Pay and Retirement Benefits"--In contrast to the current administration, which has actively sought to reduce both pay for current soldiers as well as retirement benefits for those leaving the service, Kerry has and will continue to support cost-of-living adjustments for soldiers, increased retirement and disability pay as well as concurrent receipts. Currently, any retirement pay a soldier may recieve is lessened by whatever disability pay they may recieve. While this policy isn't something started by the Bush administration (to my knowledge), not all of his stances are direct attacks on the current administration.

4. "Full Accounting for Missing POWs/MIAs"--Again, Kerry's past bipartisan efforts with other Senators like John McCaine speak to this.

5. "Combating Homelessness"--According to the figures on the issue paper, 30% of Americas homeless are veterans. Kerry helped pass the Heather French Henry Homeless Veterans Assistance Act, which I discovered, provides the following points as well as others:

a. Compensated work therapy for homeless veterans.
b. Expanded dental and medical care.
c. Transitional housing.
d. Creation of centers to investigate and establish the health needs of veterans.
e. A multigroup, comprehensive outreach program linking veterans to services they need.
f. Transitional assistance grants to veterans being released from various institutions.
g. Technical assistance grants to non-profit community groups working with homeless veterans.
h. A home loan program for manufactured housing.

After reading this issues paper, I had a better understanding of what Kerry theoretically intended for veterans, but I had to continue researching as many of the isssues were vauge and I also wanted to hear the other side of the story.

5. Veterans both for and against Kerry. I discovered that, far from my expectations of a skew one way or another, there seemed to be just as many vets either supporting Kerry or denouncing him. On the support side, I ran across the site of Veterans United For Kerry ([url]http://www.veteransunitedforkerry.com/vote/index.php) which had some interesting information presented in a obviously biased way. On the con side, I found Viet Nam Veterans Against John Kerry (http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm). Interestingly, one of the founders of this group, Ted Sampley, is taken to task by Republican Senator John McCaine, who is familiar with smear tactics being practiced on one's military record. Of the two sites (and, I must admit, there were many more on both sides that I did not have a chance to investigate, so I must say this is not a representative sample), the pro-Kerry Veterans seemed to have more credible facts than the anti-Kerry Veterans, who appeared more inclined to "misdirect" the truth with their headlines. Ultimately, however, it seems to be a sort of wash with those for and those against having good, solid reasons for their stance, but more inclined to want to attack the other side than offer supporting evidence.

After this basic research, I realized I needed more information, which I am currently compiling. However, based on the statements and actions of Kerry, I still believe that if who one votes for is going to be decided simply on Veteran's issues, then one must side with Kerry because his actions and his statements synch up, whereas Bush's actions and treatment of veterans and their needs are in direct opposition to his rhetoric. This may not prove to be the ultimate case, but the evidence up to this point seems to lean in this direction.

The problem I have with Kerry is HOW he might be paying for this increase, now we all know we can't have our cake and eat it too, one can not have a tax break and increase benefits..fair enough...I get that, always have..it's just that to my mind there are government programs we could do without, dismantle, or at the least scale back and still make up the amounts needed in order to pay for the programs Kerry is proposing. Kerry would rather raise taxes then cut social programs that I believe to be not only unConstitutional but obsolete or at the very least a State's issue.

The problem I have with Kerry is HOW he might be paying for this increase, now we all know we can't have our cake and eat it too, one can not have a tax break and increase benefits..fair enough...I get that, always have..it's just that to my mind there are government programs we could do without, dismantle, or at the least scale back and still make up the amounts needed in order to pay for the programs Kerry is proposing. Kerry would rather raise taxes then cut social programs that I believe to be not only unConstitutional but obsolete or at the very least a State's issue.
This is the kind of discussion that's fruitful, because at least there's an acknowledgement of the realities involved as far as taxes are concerned--none of this "if we cut taxes, we raise revenue" garbage.

And for all the hubbub about what Kerry will do if he's elected President, the truth of the matter is that he'll be limited by what he can get out of Congress. He'll have an easier time if the Democrats can take back at least one house of Congress, but even if they sweep into power, there won't be wholesale changes made. Any changes made in taxes will be incremental at best, simply because the people in Congress have no vested interest in overturning the established system.

Do you feel that a Kerry administration will offer veterans more support?He is a veteran, so he has a vested interest in doing so...




And so were Eisenhower and Bush Sr. Did they radically reform the system?