STOP BALANCING BUDGET ON BACKS OF MILITARY AND VETERANS

VFW ^ | 10/18/2011 | Teresa Morris

[OldGoatCPO]

McNuts proposal does not apply to VA. Only retired vets TRICARE HMO. As a disabled vet my healthcare is covered. My wife and dependent daughter will be the ones MCNuts plan will hurt. If this passes I will have two options. Either way I will remain in the military PPO but pay for HMO coverage for my wife. We checked today and that would be a Cheap route to use. We will use the Base Hospital for emergencies and medications. These services will still be free. Or I can stop working and go IU essentially 100% disabled and use VA and Base Hospital. Only pay HMO for wife a daughter. Sad it comes to this after 31 years of service.

[ChurtleDawg]

why is everyone here complaining about the government cutting the budget?

Fact: if you want small government, then benefits for you will be cut. It won’t just be programs that benefit others. You could cut all the welfare for illegal aliens and it wouldn’t put a dent in the defecit.

[W. W. SMITH]

Twenty years active with the Navy. Six different collages or universities, 200 plus semester hours, no sheepskin.
finally gave up when informed by the university of Tennessee, Knoxville that none of those hours are any good, they are all over five years old.

Been told many times was way over qualified for jobs not needing a degree and short one peace of paper for the rest.

[ChurtleDawg]

teachers, retirees, first responders and others have been hit for years (for example,my wife is a teacher and her premiums for healthcare and pension have gone up while she hasn’t gotten a raise in years).

In the private sector benefits have been getting more and more expensive for years and years but provide less and less, if they even exist anyomore. Try getting a plan without deductibles or a pension in the private sector unless you have a really high paying job. A lot of people are lucky if they even get health insurance.

Sorry, but veterans aren’t immune to budget cuts. People here have no problem cutting everyone else’s benefits but shriek like little girls when their own benefits are slashed.

[ken21]

bump.

[algernonpj]

... Flame away if you will, but we have to cut government and cut spending, and cut it everywhere. No exemptions.

My point is long before I'd cut benefits to veterans and those on SS who contributed throughout their lives as a condition of earning a living, I'd cut every thing on my list and lots more.

Here's Paul's proposed budget. It has not been discussed much and is a great starting point for discussion. Not only save $1 trillion first year, but exempts veterans and seniors. The problem is it would take politicians with the guts to implement it.

Quick summary:"Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels."

Proposed Budget

[algernonpj]

... Fact: if you want small government, then benefits for you will be cut. It won’t just be programs that benefit others. You could cut all the welfare for illegal aliens and it wouldn’t put a dent in the defecit.

Illegal aliens cost the US 1/4 - 1/3 $Trillion net per year! See post 47 for a partial list of other items. As you read the list, note much of our 'foreign aid' is hidden in the budgets of of the EPA, FDA, etc.

[Jack of all Trades]

Ron Paul is a single issue visionary who is hampered by being a whack job on everything but fiscal and monetary policy.

BTW, if we cut $1 Trillion from the deficit, we’ll still be running $300 Billion in the red.

[mountainlion]

JFK broke into the SS lock box first. Large amounts of money attracts large amounts of criminals government and private. We will have to pay for the lack of ethics in our elected criminals. SS, medicare, veteran benefits and such are magnets for cuts. Clinton cut government 10% across the board so 25% would work. Stop subsides and energy give aways for a good start.

[xzins]

Yes, I know veterans have already made sacrifices for their country. I am grateful. But we simply cannot allow any special interest group to claim a “special” exempt status when it comes to making cuts

Henkster, you sound as if you're trying to be balanced, but you also sound as if you have not been in the military. If my assumption is accurate, then there are things you simply don't know.

These are the people who have received promises and about whom you speak. These are the people who are SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Constitution as requiring support. These are the people who have paid the price, both the survival, the wounded, and the dead.

What do you owe them? Don't you think it would be, at a minimum, what you promised them?

These are the ones that some say "Must ALSO do their part."

I say that Vets and Retirees HAVE DONE their part.

[mountainlion]

When you look at the pictures you see that the veterans are the only group that have a proof of what they gave. Banks, windmill companies, all sorts of subsidies show the fat wallets of the owners buy no tangible results.

[mountainlion]

Fact: if you want small government, then benefits for you will be cut. It won’t just be programs that benefit others. You could cut all the welfare for illegal aliens and it wouldn’t put a dent in the defecit.

If Colorado cut the illegals welfare system they could put $2B back in the budget and stop blackmailing us that there is no money for the school kids.

[ChurtleDawg]

If you want to cut the budget, then you have to be prepared for programs that benefit you to get the axe. Either that or some taxes will have to go up.

We are running a 1.5 trillion dollar budget defecit a year and the fact is, unless you want higher taxes, then entitlements will have to be cut sometime. On the current tax model we can’t keep our promises, even without the stimulus, or Obamacare, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

the programs you mentioned are irrelevant. the amount of money on those programs are small, and the fact is they were not entitlements (pensions and health care programs). The entire non-defense discretionary spending budget of the government is 500 billion or so.

most people, both in government and the private sector, have seen a loss in benefits in the last 10-15 years. Medicare has seen repeated cuts and changes. Private health plans cost far, far more today than they did 10-15 years ago and provide less and less every year.

Fact: Active duty military and veterans have seen among the smallest cuts (they have been exempted from most budget cutting)-—many private employees would love to pay that kind of money for benefits.

[Alamo-Girl]

I very strongly agree, dear brother in Christ! Veterans have done their part. They made good on their promise - and we must honor the our promise to them.

[xzins]

see post #70

[HiJinx]

Fact: Active duty military and veterans have seen among the smallest cuts (they have been exempted from most budget cutting)

Bullshit. I've received a tiny annual raise at my job for the last couple of years. I have received zero cost-of-living raise in my retired pay, ditto for social security recipients. Has any other welfare program seen zero growth, or actual loss, in the last two years? No.

[ChurtleDawg]

the article is talking about an increase in premiums for Tricare members, not leaving them to die in a sewer. Unless you think there should be some tax increases, then the budget must be cut. Everywhere. That includes programs that may benefit you or that you may like.
Many on here have no problem cutting unemployment benefits, or turning Medicare into Obamacare or firing federal employees or slashing worker pensions and making teachers pay more for healthcare, but shriek when their own benfits are touched. It is hypocritical and weak.

Veterans and military have much better benefits for a lower price than pretty much anyone in the US population. Most of them didn’t get mauled in combat. And they will still have a better deal than almost everyone.

[xzins]

In my opinion, you thoroughly misunderstand. Those are not benefits. They are earned, deferred pay.

Treating disabled veterans is an obligation the nation has accepted by viture of bringing them in to fight in the first place.

I will vote for no candidate who proposes cutting even a penny of the nation’s obligation to its military. You name it, repub or dem, I will vote against them.

[ChurtleDawg]

ok, fine. Socialism for me but not for thee.

[xzins]

It’s obvious you’re not listening. Go back and look at the pictures at post #70 again. Maybe it will hit you.