• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

No Troop Left Behind

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
One thing I hear when I listen to George W.Bush speak about the military is his undying support for our troops. Being a vet I'm a little partial to this issue. Maybe more so then the average Joe. I think it's important to do everything we can to support our troops, esp. now given that a great number are in combat situations. While I toiled away floating around the Indian and Pacific Oceans back in the 80's nothing happend. Well we did invade Grenada. I understand that interupted some guys breakfast, not mine mind you.

But I'm getting off track again. President Bush is constantly making these statements about how much he supports the troops and how important they are, yet when you look at what he does, it's a completely different story. Case in point. President Bush proposed reducing the budget for military family housing by $1.5 billion. When lawmakers tried to restore this cut by reducing the tax cut for millionaires by $5,000, the White House and its allies in Congress blocked the proposal. [Source: Army Times, 7/2/03] Or how about- "Bush's 2004 budget recommends cuts of $172 million, or 14 percent, in payments called 'impact aid'" – the program that funds schools on or near military bases. "The program is set to fall by more than 30 percent, to $435 million from $635 million – much of that affecting children of troops that have served in Iraq. For example, uniformed personnel at Fort Hood, home to the 1st Cavalry and 4th Infantry, send almost 17,000 students to Killeen and Copperas Cove public schools. [A new] analysis found that Bush's proposed cuts in impact aid would reduce Killeen's school budget by $22 million, or 13 percent, while Copperas Cove would lose $9.6 million, or 22 percent. The report found a similar effect for the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga., the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade at Camp Lejeune, N.C., and the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky. The White House [is] not disputing that it is cutting the impact aid." [Source: Washington Post, 7/17/03] And- Under the headline "An Act of Betrayal," the Army Times reported that the Bush administration notified local military bases the Pentagon considering "closing or transfer control of the 58 schools it operates on 14 military installations." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has made no secret of his desire to cut education: As soon as he arrived at the Pentagon three years ago, commanders report Rumsfeld began asking: "Why am I in education?" And military families are outraged: "Betrayal - write that down and put it in your report," said Col. John Kidd, garrison commander of Fort Stewart, Ga., testifying at Tafoya's forum on the need to keep military-run schools on his post. A top Quantico base commander said he never has seen his community more united than it is over the schools issue. "The very fact that this transfer study is being conducted at this time when Marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen and their families are increasingly required to give more of themselves and to go in harm's way is taken by many as a personal affront," he said. "It raises serious questions about DoD's commitment to all quality-of-life issues." [Source: Army Times, 2/3/03]

I mean what's more important $5,000 for a millionare or housing, health care and body armor for our troops?
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has made no secret of his desire to cut education: As soon as he arrived at the Pentagon three years ago, commanders report Rumsfeld began asking: "Why am I in education?"
I'm going to add this to my list of reasons why Rumsfeld needs to be hung up by his ears.

This concept is ludicrous. The average military family does not pay property tax to the community outside of their duty station. Many soldiers either rent or make use of on base housing. Furthermore, the average military family pays considerably less in sales tax due to the use of BX/PX or Navy Exhcange services. Are we expecting the military to place an undue burden on civilian school systems in order to insure that military children receive the education they derserve? We need to continue DoD schools on CONUS posts or we need to fully understand that we will need to subsidize the schools off base to insure that both military and civilian children are not adversely effected.

"Why am I in education?"

Mr. Rumsfeld, what would you have dependant children do when their service member is stationed over seas in places like Okinawa, Germany, or Spain? Would you set them back in their education while they play catch up because of language barriers?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
This entire Bush Admin. has done nothing but pay lip service and give nice speaches about supporting our troops. Then they give more tax cut to millionaires and billionaires who don't need the cash while our troops suffer. It's all part of Georges "No Billionaire Left Behind Plan."
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I see no issue with reducing funding to OFF BASE schools. I can see Don's point. He is paying for defense and not education.

As far as ON BASE schooling, that is a different matter altogether.

But, I also have to wonder if this is from Bush's plan remove our troops from Europe and is a :spin:?
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
I see no issue with reducing funding to OFF BASE schools. I can see Don's point. He is paying for defense and not education.

As far as ON BASE schooling, that is a different matter altogether.
Reducing funding to off base schooling:

The off base schools are paid X amount for each military dependant that is enrolled in the school district. This is to off set the cost of educating the child since the child's family does not make a direct contribution to the school's funding. This eases the burden on the civilian school districts. Educating children costs money on a daily basis and is supported by our local tax dollars. Military members generally contribute less to local tax revenue.

If there were any education dollars in the budget that could be cut, it would be in the CONUS* on-base schools, but at the same time, I would be interested to see if it is cheaper in the long run to set up a school district on post rather than outsourcing the education to off-base ISDs.











* CONUS = Continental United States
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
But, I also have to wonder if this is from Bush's plan remove our troops from Europe and is a :spin:?
How does any of this have anything to do with removing troops from any overseas location? As for it being :spin: a good deal of what I posted came from the Army Times (as cited). Yeah, maybe you're right you really can't trust that liberal rag.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Didn't say it WAS a spin, just wondering.

If they remove troops from anywhere that was considered permanent, I would not dought if we hear stuff like this. While accurate in numbers, it could be a false premise.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
Didn't say it WAS a spin, just wondering.

If they remove troops from anywhere that was considered permanent, I would not dought if we hear stuff like this. While accurate in numbers, it could be a false premise.
I don't think so, for the most part these are military families and organizations that assist them reporting the effects of the Bush cut's in their benefits.

As for them closing bases overseas. I know when I was in, stateside shore duty was the most desirable. So I have no idea why they would be against closing those bases and moving stateside. Unless things have changed in the last 18 years. Things do change.
 
Last edited:

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
How does any of this have anything to do with removing troops from any overseas location?
With a reduction in troops stationed overseas (mainly USAREUR) the need for support activities is reduced. It's pretty easy to see that the DoD school's fiscal requirements would be significantly reduced with a large withdrawal from a common acompanied tour such as Germany.

Without taking the cuts due to relocating troops, we can see that there is a pretty constant trend in the reduction of funding for support activities such as education. The truth is that these activities do not appear to have a tangible impact on our nations ability to fight and are therefore seen as a burden.

Could you imagine if a president ever pushed paying soldiers what they're worth, increasing DoD education budgets, significantly increasing MWR spending, and at the same time keeping our armed forces on the leading edge of technology? I wouldn't vote for him because I would know he was a lying bastard.

Only the people in the trenches fully understand the effects of quality of life.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
LiberalFINGER said:
With a reduction in troops stationed overseas (mainly USAREUR) the need for support activities is reduced. It's pretty easy to see that the DoD school's fiscal requirements would be significantly reduced with a large withdrawal from a common acompanied tour such as Germany.

Without taking the cuts due to relocating troops, we can see that there is a pretty constant trend in the reduction of funding for support activities such as education. The truth is that these activities do not appear to have a tangible impact on our nations ability to fight and are therefore seen as a burden.
:yt

He said it so much more eloquently than I ever could.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
LiberalFINGER said:
With a reduction in troops stationed overseas (mainly USAREUR) the need for support activities is reduced. It's pretty easy to see that the DoD school's fiscal requirements would be significantly reduced with a large withdrawal from a common acompanied tour such as Germany.

Without taking the cuts due to relocating troops, we can see that there is a pretty constant trend in the reduction of funding for support activities such as education. The truth is that these activities do not appear to have a tangible impact on our nations ability to fight and are therefore seen as a burden.

Could you imagine if a president ever pushed paying soldiers what they're worth, increasing DoD education budgets, significantly increasing MWR spending, and at the same time keeping our armed forces on the leading edge of technology? I wouldn't vote for him because I would know he was a lying bastard.

Only the people in the trenches fully understand the effects of quality of life.
So then explain the cut's Bush is making to the programs.

"Bush's 2004 budget recommends cuts of $172 million, or 14 percent, in payments called 'impact aid'" – the program that funds schools on or near military bases. "The program is set to fall by more than 30 percent, to $435 million from $635 million – much of that affecting children of troops that have served in Iraq. For example, uniformed personnel at Fort Hood, home to the 1st Cavalry and 4th Infantry, send almost 17,000 students to Killeen and Copperas Cove public schools. [A new] analysis found that Bush's proposed cuts in impact aid would reduce Killeen's school budget by $22 million, or 13 percent, while Copperas Cove would lose $9.6 million, or 22 percent. The report found a similar effect for the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga., the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade at Camp Lejeune, N.C., and the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky. The White House [is] not disputing that it is cutting the impact aid."
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
"Bush's 2004 budget recommends cuts of $172 million, or 14 percent, in payments called 'impact aid'" – the program that funds schools on or near military bases. "The program is set to fall by more than 30 percent, to $435 million from $635 million – much of that affecting children of troops that have served in Iraq. For example, uniformed personnel at Fort Hood, home to the 1st Cavalry and 4th Infantry, send almost 17,000 students to Killeen and Copperas Cove public schools. [A new] analysis found that Bush's proposed cuts in impact aid would reduce Killeen's school budget by $22 million, or 13 percent, while Copperas Cove would lose $9.6 million, or 22 percent. The report found a similar effect for the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga., the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade at Camp Lejeune, N.C., and the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky. The White House [is] not disputing that it is cutting the impact aid." 12-05-2004 12:43 AM

Yes, you raise a very valid point, but I think you might have been a bit quick to lay Fact Pavement all over and didn't read the second paragraph.


Without taking the cuts due to relocating troops, we can see that there is a pretty constant trend in the reduction of funding for support activities such as education. The truth is that these activities do not appear to have a tangible impact on our nations ability to fight and are therefore seen as a burden.
This statement, although sad, is very true. I would like to thank you for throwing the numbers in there and adding a little more credibility to it.

We've watched military benefits get torn to shreds for nearly 3 decades. That is why I added this to my post:

Could you imagine if a president ever pushed paying soldiers what they're worth, increasing DoD education budgets, significantly increasing MWR spending, and at the same time keeping our armed forces on the leading edge of technology? I wouldn't vote for him because I would know he was a lying bastard.

Only the people in the trenches fully understand the effects of quality of life.
It's not the republicans who screw the military. It's not the democrats. It's everyone. EVERYONE.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
LiberalFINGER said:
"Bush's 2004 budget recommends cuts of $172 million, or 14 percent, in payments called 'impact aid'" – the program that funds schools on or near military bases. "The program is set to fall by more than 30 percent, to $435 million from $635 million – much of that affecting children of troops that have served in Iraq. For example, uniformed personnel at Fort Hood, home to the 1st Cavalry and 4th Infantry, send almost 17,000 students to Killeen and Copperas Cove public schools. [A new] analysis found that Bush's proposed cuts in impact aid would reduce Killeen's school budget by $22 million, or 13 percent, while Copperas Cove would lose $9.6 million, or 22 percent. The report found a similar effect for the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga., the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade at Camp Lejeune, N.C., and the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky. The White House [is] not disputing that it is cutting the impact aid." 12-05-2004 12:43 AM

Yes, you raise a very valid point, but I think you might have been a bit quick to lay Fact Pavement all over and didn't read the second paragraph.



This statement, although sad, is very true. I would like to thank you for throwing the numbers in there and adding a little more credibility to it.

We've watched military benefits get torn to shreds for nearly 3 decades. That is why I added this to my post:


It's not the republicans who screw the military. It's not the democrats. It's everyone. EVERYONE.
I didn't throw any number in there, as noted I simply pasted it from the Army Times article and from a Washington Post article.

I actually did read your second paragraph, several times. I just couldn't for the life of me understand what you were trying to say.

Yes, they've/we've all been "screwing" the military for years now, and yes it would be really alarming if someone, anyone, got up and promised to give them what they were worth. My point is and was that everytime I hear Bush speak about the military he makes it sound like he's their savior. He isn't. He makes statements like "we've increased veterans benefits" and while that statement may be tech. true the reality is the program funding may have increased, but it hasn't increase even enough to maintain the current programs in most cases. The overall result is a decrease in per veteran benefits.
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
I didn't throw any number in there, as noted I simply pasted it from the Army Times article and from a Washington Post article.
Point of clarification:
I didn't say you made the numbers up. By throwing, I meant simply adding them to the thread so that we could have some hard numbers to look at.

Given two evils to choose from, I would rather take a raise in benefits that works out to virutally nothing compared to the increase in costs versus a cut in budget.
 
Top Bottom