• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Interesting question i have.

Originally Posted by cnredd:
I have SUCH an urge to start a thread with a list of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" sources...

When it comes to facts...factcheck.org and MAYBE snopes.com...

Surveys...Pew Research...

I hate it when someone uses an "Op-Ed" piece as a source...

I said this before....How much credibility can one have when they use agenda driven links?

"I think Hillary Clinton is a great person...Here is my source..."

http://www.IthinkHillaryClintonisagreatperson.com

It's total BS...
The only thing that is bullshit, is your double-standard of living!

Your, "My daddy can beat your daddy source rap", doesn't show a whole lotta maturity, Braaaaah!
 
Navy Pride said:
As a Veteran who keeps up with Veteran benefits and uses the Va for my medical services I can tell you that there has been no cuts in funding or benefits.......In fact this president and his administration has passed the biggest raises and increased benefits more then any President since Nixon.......

once again you ignore fcts. seen the 2006 numbers? HELLO??!

And i guess you can say there havent been 'cuts' but hospitals have closed and the money allocated to them given to another hospital. while on paper, there isnt a cut,ask an unemployed nurse or a vet that now has to drive 50 more miles for their care if there hasntbeen an effect.
 
Just as an update, the person that Marty was dealing with is now under inquiry because of what the person I talked to called "bad manners" and Marty is going in for an evaluative check on Friday which is good considering I leave the state pretty soon. I hope that expletive is fired...he deserves it. At least now I am seeing some action.
 
Stinger said:
After they had already increased it by far over anything any other president ever has. There has not been a President who has support the VA more than this one.

See: http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html
Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut

.

That is not the whole picture.

Actually if the 2005 budget numbers hold, the total increase under Bush will be about 38%. In the eight years of the Clinton administration, the veterans’ budget increased by 32%.

BUT

"The real issue is that while the dollar amount going to veterans’ programs has increased, the increases have fallen seriously short of demand. By the VA’s own account, demand for VA services has been increasing at a rate of about 15% per year while the average annual funding has increased by only 9.5%. Using these numbers, one calculates that the VA budget is about $10 billion below the level determined by demand. VA director Anthony Principi admitted in February in a House committee hearing that he had asked the Bush budget team for approval to seek an additional $1.2 billion but that his request was denied. FactCheck.org called this blunt admission by Principi “a rare break with administration protocol.”

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=803


Another troubling aspect of the Bush administration’s handling of veterans is what is known as demand management: If funding is below demand, then do what is necessary to reduce demand. This is exactly what the VA has done with the program known as Veterans Outreach. This program, created by Congress in 1970, was intended to ensure that all veterans receive “timely and appropriate assistance to aid and encourage them in applying for and obtaining” federal benefits and services. To fulfill this purpose, Congress charged the VA “with the affirmative duty of seeking out eligible veterans and eligible dependents and providing them” with the federal benefits and services to which they are entitled.

In July 2002, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Deputy Secretary for Operation and Management, Laura Miller, issued a memorandum to all VA Network Directors regarding the agency’s Outreach policy toward veterans. In her statement, Miller instructed all Network Directors to “ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within your networks.” It goes on to say that “[e]ven though some sites might have local capacity … all facilities are expected to abide by this policy.” In effect, VA employees were specifically directed to refrain from actively recruiting more people into the VA health care system and to provide only general information.

Representative Ted Strickland, Democrat from Ohio, objected strongly to the VA position on Outreach. According to Strickland’s office, Principi defended this policy, stating in a letter to Strickland in January 2003: “I made the decision to temporarily restrict marketing in order to conserve scarce fiscal resources for the veterans already enrolled in the VA system.”

Shortly after Principi’s letter, Congressman Strickland and Thomas Corey, the president of Vietnam Veterans of America, filed suit in federal court “to compel the VA to comply with its legal obligation to inform potential patients and beneficiaries of available VA programs and services.” The lawsuit states that, “Congress has explicitly directed the VA to perform outreach services to ensure that veterans and their families are aware of services and benefits to which they are entitled.”

The Knight Ridder newspaper group recently reported the results of its analysis of the number of veterans who are potentially missing out on disability payments and who would benefit if Outreach were to be aggressively implemented. Using the VA’s own survey data, Knight Ridder estimates the number of such veterans at 572,000. If only a third of these veterans turned out to be eligible, the cost would be about $1.5 billion. But as we’ve seen, while this amount is pocket change compared to the Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq, or the recent Medicare bill at $500 billion dollars, for veterans, sadly, this is big money.

There is more here:
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=803
 
Back
Top Bottom