I am fed up with the lies of Liberals and their claims that Bush lied when not only was he telling the Truth but the things he is accused of making up are things Bill Clinton and loads of other Democrats said before Bush was President.
Which makes me wonder why Liberals support regimes that believe in cutting off tongues for lying.
2006-07-14 13:58:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by MrCool1978 6
·
7⤊
9⤋
Congress has control over the veteran spending. They are the ones that have cut the benefits. Older vets do not qualify for any health benefits through the VA after a certain year unless they were already in the system. I have 2 friends that were affected by this. This allows them to redirect funds to take care of the new veterans that are needing their services more. Do I agree, no way.
2006-07-14 13:57:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah, it is soooo forged. Funny, you look online, & I worked at a Vet Center TWO MONTHS AGO. I see the cuts that were made to their benefits. I see the homeless vets that are out there when I was outreaching. I hear the veterans at the center talking about how their benefits were cut. I actually SPOKE TO VETS.
So right wing jackass, go out into the world once in a while and stop believing what you see ONLINE.
I know it was addressed to me. Any other bull$%#!, I mean, knowledge you want to share with me?
2006-07-14 14:09:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by linus_van_pelt68 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
These are the LIES that concern me:
And they aren't from the left.
1. The Clear Skies Initiative actually rolled back deadlines for cleaning up the air. 2. The No Child Left Behind act has led to poorly performing children being pushed to drop out of school and fewer graduating students.
3. The healthy Forest Act led to greater logging of once protected wilderness. 4. They created an Opt In program for Head Start programs that permits states to take Head Start money and opt out of providing Head Start programs with it. 4. The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01 5. adding more than $50 billion to the deficit, he called it the “Deficit Reduction Act.” 6. 2000 campaign, George Bush promised to bring “dignity” to the White House… but we’ve since found that he brought Jack Abramoff instead 7. The phrase "we need sound science" is used a lot these days to cast days to simultaneously cast doubt on scientific evidence that is already solid: Kyoto, Global Warming
8. coalition of the willing: coalition of the coerced, paid,etc. 9. enemy combatant: legal wording to get around the Geneva Conventions 10. free speech zone: an area set aside for protesters in which law enforcement supposedly will not interfere with them if they stay within it, but may assail or arrest them if they venture out of it. - Used to prevent Bush being photographed with protesters.
2006-07-14 14:31:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by oohhbother 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You're the jackass. Bush has fought the increases in VA spending every step of the way. He didn't veto the increased spending because he hasn't vetoed anything.
If his plan had gone through, I would have paid $900 more for my VA medical benefits this year while the wealthiest Americans got tax cuts Bozo.
Get your head out of your a$$ wingnut.
2006-07-14 14:00:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by noils 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
As a vet let me tell you first hand that those are not liberal lies.
But serious God honest truth. The fact that you don't see it saddens not only my heart but to my fellow men/women in the armed forces that are standing behind me while i type this.
Please don't let propaganda steer your thoughts and beliefs...do your own research.
2006-07-14 14:01:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Charlooch 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Misstatements, spin, and outright lies come from both of the two older parties. Those who base their political position on principles or third party positions have no confidence in either of these two parties.
2006-07-14 13:59:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by Randy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's semantics. The Bush administration didn't "cut" (as in remove) benefits; it just refuses to supply the necessary funding.
2006-07-14 14:11:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't need forged documentation when a WWII vet ( my father) has been denied further vet benefits since last year.
2006-07-14 14:44:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by rogue 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
well... I didn't hear about anything pre-2003 either... but since then I've heard about a lot... so your article doesn't address those issues...
and gov. programs do increase every year, due to inflation and a growing population, so just because more money is spent, it doesn't necessarily mean programs aren't cut...
2006-07-14 14:06:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
**********************************************************
WP story
A new report by the Democratic staff on the House Appropriations Committee this week asserts that Bush, by cutting about $200 million in the program that provides assistance to public schools serving military bases, would pare education funding disproportionately for children of soldiers who fought in Iraq. That adds to several complaints the staff has assembled: Bush's signature on the latest tax cut, which failed to extend a child tax credit to nearly 200,000 low-income military personnel; a $1.5 billion reduction in his 2004 budget, to $9.2 billion from $10.7 billion, for military housing and the like; and a cut of $14.6 billion over 10 years in benefits paid through the Veterans Administration.
"They're saying they unequivocally support the military, but then they make quite clear that the check is not in the mail," said Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), the top Democrat on House Appropriations, referring to the administration. "They're taking actions that fly in the face of the support they profess for the military."
The White House parries the charge by pointing to pay raises for the troops of more than 15 percent under Bush, privatizing of troops' housing, and large increases in defense spending -- all resulting in record retention rates in the military. Bush aides also counter that the president proposed the largest-ever increase in discretionary spending for the Veterans Administration in his 2004 budget.
"The commander in chief has restored respect, pride, pay, training and the quality of life for our active-duty military and veterans," said Trent Duffy, spokesman for Bush's Office of Management and Budget. "His special bond with our troops only grows stronger by shallow attempts to weaken it."
But such attempts are not new. Bush himself used a similar attack against Al Gore in the 2000 campaign, complaining to a VFW meeting in August 2000 about "soldiers who are on food stamps and soldiers who are poorly housed." He vowed then: "We will give our armed forces better pay, better treatment and better training."
This time around, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a presidential candidate and Vietnam veteran, said he feels "very strongly" that the issue, particularly veterans' benefits, is a vulnerability for Bush. "The real test of patriotism is how you treat veterans and keep promises to people who wore the uniform," he said.
The maneuvering has already begun. Last week, Democrats tried to add $947 million for military housing to a 2004 spending bill, losing on a party-line vote in a subcommittee. They also charge that Bush would cut off about 173,000 veterans from health care under his 2004 budget request to "refocus the VA health care system" while requiring enrollment fees and higher out-of-pocket
2006-07-15 05:30:26
·
answer #11
·
answered by nefariousx 6
·
0⤊
0⤋