Skip to main content

WHY DO REPUBLICANS ALWAYS SAY THEY SUPPORT THE TROOPS BUT THEN STAB THEM IN THE BACK?

The GI Bill was passed in the 1940s to help veterans transition back into civilian life by offering them a college education courtesy of the American taxpayers. The GI Bill was a successful program that helped build a strong and powerful American middle class after World War II. But to Republicans it was another socialist giveaway that took money out of the pockets of the wealthy to help poor slobs. Like all New Deal programs, they set about to destroy it. And, sure enough, it isn't an effective tool these days for achieving its goals. The good news, though, is that decorated ex-Marine, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and genuine war hero Chuck Hagel (R-NE) have a bill in Congress-- the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (S.22 & H.R.2702)-- to update the GI Bill and it is being supported by almost every Democrat and by 9 Republicans.

Republicans always say they support the troops. But do they? Well, they support militarism and aggression, but they rarely support vets or even active duty soldiers. They support defense contractors and mercenaries but when it comes to our own fighting men and women... talk is cheap and the GOP is cheaper. Look at John McCain, for example. He has made claiming to be a national war hero into a cottage industry and based his whole career on it but when it comes to voting in the Senate... his record on the well-being of our military personnel and his record on veterans are abysmal. Has there been anyone with a worse voting record on support for vets and active duty servicemen? Not many but, predictably, John Cornyn (R-TX) is one. Cornyn has the worst voting record in the whole Senate on the well-being of our troops, even worse than McCain's... and, of course, the worst voting record in the Senate on veterans' well-being too boot, also worse than McCain's. But what Cornyn and McCain both have in common is that neither will sign on to the Webb-Hagel GI Bill.

Last month we talked a little about how Inhofe always claims to "support the troops" but never does. "He's the epitome of what it is to be a Bush rubber stamp senator-- and he's up for re-election in 8 months-- and in a state where they take the welfare of our troops and veterans very, very seriously." He started feeling the heat from Oklahoma voters and from Democrat Andrew Rice and he actually signed on to Jim Webb's bill, a 100% departure for his zero record of support for our troops and vets. Today VoteVets and General Wes Clark are urging all Americans to sign a petition urging John McCain to sign the petition and show some leadership by bringing along enough Republican senators to actually pass this bill and keep it from being filibustered to death by chief GOP obstructionist Mitch McConnell. Take a look at Robert Greenwald's new video for this effort:
Watch Video please!
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-do-repu...always-say-they.html
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Yeah, they cheat the Vets and short change the troops in combat. In fact in Vietnam the U.S government made money selling drugs to the troops, so they made money to further support the war off the backs of the troops. They got them addicted to it.

Today most troops are on food stamps and struggling when not in combat getting hazard pay. I love the troops over there, in fact my friend just came back after being in Iraq twice and will be going back soon once again. I have another one in Afghanistan. I also chat with Iraqi people through Yahoo messenger to get their perspective on the war.

My friend that just got back said that the only ones that want them to leave Iraq are the insurgents. The majority of the citizens want them there.



Last edited {1}
cyfilmstudent,

"Yeah, they cheat the Vets and short change the troops in combat. In fact in Vietnam the U.S government made money selling drugs to the troops, so they made money to further support the war off the backs of the troops. They got them addicted to it."


I see she took down the middle photo -- down the memory hole. It was from infowars.com, I believe.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OK, that must qualify as one of the most ignorant, stupid statements ever to grace this forum. And, that is saying something. My older brother is a veteran of Viet Nam, so I have first hand knowledge. He went over as a PFC and return as a sergeant. He spoke of the drugs over there many times and how easy they were to get. He never used any himself, but his platoon had a number of addicts. A soldiers pay was from $115 a month to about $300 a month, plus $65 combat pay. Skag, about 90 percent pure heroin, could be traded for a carton of cigarettes (about $1.70 per carton) at the PX or liquor.

The idea the US government could make money off such paltry pay amazes me. My brother believed the drugs came from the Golden Triangle region at a nexus of Thailand, China and Burma, and from North Vietnam.

I assume you gleaned your information from a leftwing or just looney tune website. Care to source you claim?

Your second photo is from a website that claims Obama is a Bilderberger pawn? Do you believe that, as well?
Last edited by Howard Roark
quote:
Originally posted by gracies old man:
WHY CAN'T DEMOCRATS EVER SAY ANYTHING POSITIVE?

WHY IS DOOM AND GLOOM ALWAYS YOUR PERSISTANT MESSAGE?

WHY DO YOU CONSTANTLY WANT TO BRING EVERYONE DOWN (to your level) AND NEVER LIFT UP ANYONE UP?

WHY DO DEMS NEVER HAVE ANYTHING GOOD TO SAY ABOUT THIS COUNTRY?

WHY AM I USING ALL CAPS? (I guess I'm responding to post title)



To answer you questions very politely, take a look at yourself in the mirror. We try to be very nice. We try to be careful and not let people like you get us banned from the board by falling for your attacks to get us pissed off enough to attack you, for only you to report us and get us banned, as many right wingers have done in the past. So, use your attacks on all the democrats that you wish.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
JJP,

Its a simple question. Why won't you answer it?



Why are you against allowing the unused portion of a vets's education benefits be used by their spouse or children? I am not against benefits for the troops and you should know that. I'm all for the GI bill, housing for the troops and their families while they serve our country. Now, does that answer your question Howard?
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
cyfilmstudent,

"Yeah, they cheat the Vets and short change the troops in combat. In fact in Vietnam the U.S government made money selling drugs to the troops, so they made money to further support the war off the backs of the troops. They got them addicted to it."


I see she took down the middle photo -- down the memory hole. It was from infowars.com, I believe.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OK, that must qualify as one of the most ignorant, stupid statements ever to grace this forum. And, that is saying something. My older brother is a veteran of Viet Nam, so I have first hand knowledge. He went over as a PFC and return as a sergeant. He spoke of the drugs over there many times and how easy they were to get. He never used any himself, but his platoon had a number of addicts. A soldiers pay was from $115 a month to about $300 a month, plus $65 combat pay. Skag, about 90 percent pure heroin, could be traded for a carton of cigarettes (about $1.70 per carton) at the PX or liquor.

The idea the US government could make money off such paltry pay amazes me. My brother believed the drugs came from the Golden Triangle region at a nexus of Thailand, China and Burma, and from North Vietnam.

I assume you gleaned your information from a leftwing or just looney tune website. Care to source you claim?

Your second photo is from a website that claims Obama is a Bilderberger pawn? Do you believe that, as well?


I did not take down the middle photo Times Daily did because it was to graphic for your innocent eyes I assume. I think that just because you have first hand (through your brother) knowledge does not mean that you have all the knowledge.
Why are you saying that my statement is stupid when you just confirmed that drugs were "easy to get over there." The reality is there, but you are not putting two and two together. Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
cyfilmstudent,

"Yeah, they cheat the Vets and short change the troops in combat. In fact in Vietnam the U.S government made money selling drugs to the troops, so they made money to further support the war off the backs of the troops. They got them addicted to it."


I see she took down the middle photo -- down the memory hole. It was from infowars.com, I believe.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OK, that must qualify as one of the most ignorant, stupid statements ever to grace this forum. And, that is saying something. My older brother is a veteran of Viet Nam, so I have first hand knowledge. He went over as a PFC and return as a sergeant. He spoke of the drugs over there many times and how easy they were to get. He never used any himself, but his platoon had a number of addicts. A soldiers pay was from $115 a month to about $300 a month, plus $65 combat pay. Skag, about 90 percent pure heroin, could be traded for a carton of cigarettes (about $1.70 per carton) at the PX or liquor.

The idea the US government could make money off such paltry pay amazes me. My brother believed the drugs came from the Golden Triangle region at a nexus of Thailand, China and Burma, and from North Vietnam.

I assume you gleaned your information from a leftwing or just looney tune website. Care to source you claim?

Your second photo is from a website that claims Obama is a Bilderberger pawn? Do you believe that, as well?


My information did not come from a website, it also came from a person who knows. I forgot to add I'm not a freaking Liberal. I do not like them or support their views.
cyfilm,

Do you really know someone who was part of a government program that sold heroin to the troops? At least, can you tell me what agency! As I've shown, swapping a carton of $1.70 cigarettes (ration allowed six cartons a month) or its monetary equivalent from troops making $115 to $350 a month would generate enough cash to pay peasants who worked for pennies a day, but not an American war machine that takes billions to finance. Government admin costs, alone, would be prohibitive.
cyfilm,

"Today most troops are on food stamps and struggling when not in combat getting hazard pay"
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lady, As it appears your were sadly misinformed and not an idealogue, I will be a bit more respectful of your statements.

Below, are the maximum incomes for a family to be eligible for food stamps. My source is the USDA website.


Household*******Gross monthly
size************monthly income
1****************1,107
2****************1,484
3****************1,861
4****************2,238
5****************2,615
6****************2,992
7****************3,369
8****************3,746

A soldiers base pay plus his allowance for housing count towards the gross monthly income total. Other pay such as rations, hazardous duty pay, etc. do not count.

An E-1 recruit makes $1,245 in base pay with a housing allowance of about $1,373 for a total of $2,618. Therefore, a young recruit with a wife and three children would be eligible for food stamps. Most recruits are single. For a more typical staff sergeant with more than two years the case would be a base pay of $2,047 and a housing allowance of $1,605 for a total of $4,017 or not eligible. Some soldiers are eligible, in particular PFCs and similar with large families in a high cost area such as DC, NYC or LA. However, most soldiers are not eligible for foodstamps.

Do we pay our troops enough, No! But, please look beyond the propaganda that is thrown at young people. So much is garbage. Do a bit of elementary research into such outrageous claims.
Good people,

JJ Paul seems to be PB reincarnated. Same Pinko rhetoric, same rabble rousing, few if any original thoughts and all that cut and paste, whew, my finger grows tired. What happened to PB ? Was it tossed, banned or what? It seems as if it has found it's way back. Why entertain it with replies. Designation it, is meant to be gender unknown nonderogatory of course.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×