FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


US Soliders' Reception of the President





jmi256
Whether you liked Bush or not, the differing of opinions of the two from US servicemen and women is apparent. Notice how Bush receives a warm and rowdy welcome while Obama receives a lukewarm welcome at best.

Bush's reception:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6epBwrGNhs

Obama's reception:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZYVbO4HmM


Now I think part of this is just an initial distrust of Obama due to the Democrats' stance against servicemen and women in the 90s (I was in the Marines during the Clinton Administration, and moral and environment was grim at best). The military may come around and warm up to Obama, but given his own stances, I won't hold my breath.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Whether you liked Bush or not, the differing of opinions of the two from US servicemen and women is apparent. Notice how Bush receives a warm and rowdy welcome while Obama receives a lukewarm welcome at best.

Bush's reception:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6epBwrGNhs

Obama's reception:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZYVbO4HmM


Now I think part of this is just an initial distrust of Obama due to the Democrats' stance against servicemen and women in the 90s (I was in the Marines during the Clinton Administration, and moral and environment was grim at best). The military may come around and warm up to Obama, but given his own stances, I won't hold my breath.


Hmmm .... well .... perhaps Bush made a significant investment in the military, not only in terms of funds allocated, but he really walked his talk including taking enormous risks and talking straight. Whereas Obama is talking about cutting troops, and well do democrats like to make war? What is there record in general in the business of war? Smile
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Whether you liked Bush or not, the differing of opinions of the two from US servicemen and women is apparent. Notice how Bush receives a warm and rowdy welcome while Obama receives a lukewarm welcome at best.

Bush's reception:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6epBwrGNhs

Obama's reception:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZYVbO4HmM


Now I think part of this is just an initial distrust of Obama due to the Democrats' stance against servicemen and women in the 90s (I was in the Marines during the Clinton Administration, and moral and environment was grim at best). The military may come around and warm up to Obama, but given his own stances, I won't hold my breath.


Hmmm .... well .... perhaps Bush made a significant investment in the military, not only in terms of funds allocated, but he really walked his talk including taking enormous risks and talking straight. Whereas Obama is talking about cutting troops, and well do democrats like to make war? What is there record in general in the business of war? Smile


Soldiers hate war and would rather let diplomacy and statesmanship work to avert conflict. Soldiers are the ones who have to engage in it and take the risk of being killed and maimed, or watching their friends around them get killed or maimed. The reason they do engage in it when needed, however, is that despite the hardships of the soldier's life (deployment, harm, etc.) they are trying to protect their loved ones at home.

One thing I have heard/noticed about Bush when speaking to soldiers is that they genuinely respect him because they feel that he did what he did to protect the US, not to be popular in some polls. Clinton was in office when I was in the Marines, and the officers had to constantly remind everyone that he was our Commander in Chief and that we shouldn't disparage him (at least not in public). I have sense this occurred far less under Bush, but you’ll always get an outlier.

I haven't spoken to any of my friends who are still in the service since Obama's inauguration, but during the election I remember a lot of them saying they were very concerned about having a Democrat is office.
liljp617
It's not really a secret the majority of people in the military are self-proclaimed conservatives and Republicans. Would you expect the reception of each individual to be any different?
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
It's not really a secret the majority of people in the military are self-proclaimed conservatives and Republicans. Would you expect the reception of each individual to be any different?
Well I would take a good bet that it would have been better in Clinton's case provided it was at the end of his presidency, not currently of course? Wink
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2002/0101terrorism_ohanlon.aspx
handfleisch
sorry to interrupt the cherrypicked video conclusions to support your biases but here is one where US troops were big fans of Obama even before the election even before this 3 pointer. Awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j87k1j4CpOw
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
sorry to interrupt the cherrypicked video conclusions to support your biases but here is one where US troops were big fans of Obama even before the election even before this 3 pointer. Awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j87k1j4CpOw


Come off it Handfleish, he was far from President yet. This is not relevant.
jmi256
liljp617 wrote:
It's not really a secret the majority of people in the military are self-proclaimed conservatives and Republicans. Would you expect the reception of each individual to be any different?


I agree that many in the military align with more conservative principles (strong security, a less intrusive government, accountability, etc.), but I wouldn't say they are self-proclaimed Republicans.

First of all, many (not all) actually refuse to vote in the belief that as soldiers it is against their best interests to take a stance and have a say for or against their commander. While they defend democracy, democracy is a lousy way to run a command.

Second of all, those who join the military tend to come from core DNC demographic areas, but join the military to forward themselves. As much as some Democrats like to bash our military, it does provide a framework to get ahead. It teaches self-reliance, aids in schooling (both while you're in the service and after you are out) and also gives you a self-confidence that stays with you long after you've moved back to civilian life.
ocalhoun
Besides simply being a Democrat, and likely to reduce military spending (which means less job security, fewer promotions, and smaller pay raises for the troops), there is another reason Obama has gotten an under-enthusiastic reception.

The troops don't trust someone who never served in the military to be their commander in chief.


I can personally assure you, nobody really knows how the military operates, or what it is like to be one of the troops without having been in it themselves.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I can personally assure you, nobody really knows how the military operates, or what it is like to be one of the troops without having been in it themselves.


Good point Ocalhoun. It's something nobody outside would ever be able to "get". The ranks are usually always closed to the outside.
jmi256
Obama isn't going to win over people in the military, veterans or their families if he is successful in his scheme to make them pay for their own treatment of service-related injuries.

Quote:

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.


"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."


The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"


Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."


Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.


"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.


"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

Source = http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_s_plan_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Obama isn't going to win over people in the military, veterans or their families if he is successful in his scheme to make them pay for their own treatment of service-related injuries.

Quote:

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment



Debunked:

Quote:
VA Budget: Praise and a Warning
Tom Philpott | March 12, 2009

Many Cheers, Single Boo, Greet Obama's Budget for Vets


President Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations for proposing a Department of Veterans Affairs budget that would exceed by $1.3 billion what even VSOs suggested be spent next year.

No president before ever offered a VA spending plan that surpassed in size the "Independent Budget" presented to Congress by major veterans groups. Obama seeks to fulfill several high-profile promises made to veterans during his presidential campaign including a big increase in VA healthcare budgets.

But it was a new and unpopular proposal being studied by the administration that created uncomfortable moments for VA Secretary Eric K. Shinseki when he made separate appearances Tuesday before the House and Senate veterans' affairs committees.

Obama's VA budget outline, with full details promised by late April, would raise VA spending to $112.8 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. That's an increase of $15 billion, or 15 percent, over the current budget.

"This is the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans," Shinseki told lawmakers.

The plan allows the VA health care system to enroll up to 550,000 new Priority Group 8 veterans by 2013. These are veterans who have no service-connected ailments and have incomes deemed adequate based on family size and geographic location. The total for new enrollees includes 266,000 Group 8 veterans already slated to enroll in VA health system starting this summer under a funding initiative Congress passed last fall.

Obama's Defense and VA budgets also call for a gradual lifting of what remains of the ban on concurrent receipt of both military retirement and VA disability compensation for disabled retirees. The next step would occur in 2010 with concurrent receipt allowed for the most seriously disabled veterans forced to retire short of 20 years. Further details must await the full budget's release in April, Shinseki said.

Shinseki received a warm welcome when he presented the budget outline to the Senate and House veterans' affairs committees. But he also got a string of strong warnings from committee members over a cost-saving proposal that Shinseki conceded is under study. The administration is considering charging veterans' health insurance plans earned through civilian employment for VA's costs in treating service-connected injuries or ailments.

VA already taps "third party" insurance plans for treatment of non-service-related conditions. Collections in fiscal 2008 totaled $2.4 billion. VA expects to college $2.5 billion this year. The total could jump to $3 billion next year if care of service-connected conditions are included.


http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186747,00.html
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Obama isn't going to win over people in the military, veterans or their families if he is successful in his scheme to make them pay for their own treatment of service-related injuries.

Quote:

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment



Debunked:

Quote:
VA Budget: Praise and a Warning
Tom Philpott | March 12, 2009

Many Cheers, Single Boo, Greet Obama's Budget for Vets


President Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations for proposing a Department of Veterans Affairs budget that would exceed by $1.3 billion what even VSOs suggested be spent next year.

No president before ever offered a VA spending plan that surpassed in size the "Independent Budget" presented to Congress by major veterans groups. Obama seeks to fulfill several high-profile promises made to veterans during his presidential campaign including a big increase in VA healthcare budgets.

But it was a new and unpopular proposal being studied by the administration that created uncomfortable moments for VA Secretary Eric K. Shinseki when he made separate appearances Tuesday before the House and Senate veterans' affairs committees.

Obama's VA budget outline, with full details promised by late April, would raise VA spending to $112.8 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. That's an increase of $15 billion, or 15 percent, over the current budget.

"This is the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans," Shinseki told lawmakers.

The plan allows the VA health care system to enroll up to 550,000 new Priority Group 8 veterans by 2013. These are veterans who have no service-connected ailments and have incomes deemed adequate based on family size and geographic location. The total for new enrollees includes 266,000 Group 8 veterans already slated to enroll in VA health system starting this summer under a funding initiative Congress passed last fall.

Obama's Defense and VA budgets also call for a gradual lifting of what remains of the ban on concurrent receipt of both military retirement and VA disability compensation for disabled retirees. The next step would occur in 2010 with concurrent receipt allowed for the most seriously disabled veterans forced to retire short of 20 years. Further details must await the full budget's release in April, Shinseki said.

Shinseki received a warm welcome when he presented the budget outline to the Senate and House veterans' affairs committees. But he also got a string of strong warnings from committee members over a cost-saving proposal that Shinseki conceded is under study. The administration is considering charging veterans' health insurance plans earned through civilian employment for VA's costs in treating service-connected injuries or ailments.

VA already taps "third party" insurance plans for treatment of non-service-related conditions. Collections in fiscal 2008 totaled $2.4 billion. VA expects to college $2.5 billion this year. The total could jump to $3 billion next year if care of service-connected conditions are included.


http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186747,00.html


How does that "debunk" it? Why should insurance companies be required to pay a dime for service related injuries or health issues?

Respectfully,
M
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:

How does that "debunk" it? Why should insurance companies be required to pay a dime for service related injuries or health issues?


The news article I cited debunks the press release (it's not even a news article) because it shows it to be totally cherry-picking the one and only negative element in a story that was overwhelmingly positive and making that one negative element like it was the main story, which it was not. Surely you can see that saying Obama is going to lose the support of military families because of this is ridiculous when the real story is that Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Surely you can see that saying Obama is going to lose the support of military families because of this is ridiculous when the real story is that Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations.
What evidence is there for these two statements?
1. Obama has the support of military families
2. Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations
Question
Xanatos
If insurance companies are paying for it then it still comes out of the veterans own insurance/pocket. This is very very wrong in my opinion. I don't care if it brings in more money for the government or VA. Veterans should not have to pay for the injuries or other health issues they sustained while on duty.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Quote:

No president before ever offered a VA spending plan that surpassed in size the "Independent Budget" presented to Congress by major veterans groups.

Because everyone always asks for more than they need, at least by a little. So giving them more than that is a complete waste.

I'm sure it makes the VA very happy to get more money than it needs, but it doesn't justify what amounts to institutional bribery. You give them more money temporarily, while reducing benefits permanently.

This shows another continuation of the horrendous policy of "Throw money at the problem and everybody will be happy" that seems to rule Washington now. It simply isn't sustainable though, and it doesn't permanently fix anything.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:

How does that "debunk" it? Why should insurance companies be required to pay a dime for service related injuries or health issues?


The news article I cited debunks the press release (it's not even a news article) because it shows it to be totally cherry-picking the one and only negative element in a story that was overwhelmingly positive and making that one negative element like it was the main story, which it was not. Surely you can see that saying Obama is going to lose the support of military families because of this is ridiculous when the real story is that Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations.


Well, I am a veteran and I'm livid over this proposed dishonorable shirking of the United States' responsibility.

Respectfully,
M
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:

How does that "debunk" it? Why should insurance companies be required to pay a dime for service related injuries or health issues?


The news article I cited debunks the press release (it's not even a news article) because it shows it to be totally cherry-picking the one and only negative element in a story that was overwhelmingly positive and making that one negative element like it was the main story, which it was not. Surely you can see that saying Obama is going to lose the support of military families because of this is ridiculous when the real story is that Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations.


Well, I am a veteran and I'm livid over this proposed dishonorable shirking of the United States' responsibility.


Your lividness and personal anecdote do not negate my point. Your fellow veterans disagree with you as they are heaping high praise on the package that you are going livid about one small part of. Naturally one heeds the majority reaction with a bit more weight.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:

Well, I am a veteran and I'm livid over this proposed dishonorable shirking of the United States' responsibility.


Your lividness and personal anecdote do not negate my point. Your fellow veterans disagree with you as they are heaping high praise on the package that you are going livid about one small part of. Naturally one heeds the majority reaction with a bit more weight.


It may be your opinion, handfleish, that veterans are heaping praise on Obama's plan to make them pay for their own treatment, but I think the voice of actual veterans and veteran organizations, like the American Legion as shown above, have more weight.
Xanatos
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:

How does that "debunk" it? Why should insurance companies be required to pay a dime for service related injuries or health issues?


The news article I cited debunks the press release (it's not even a news article) because it shows it to be totally cherry-picking the one and only negative element in a story that was overwhelmingly positive and making that one negative element like it was the main story, which it was not. Surely you can see that saying Obama is going to lose the support of military families because of this is ridiculous when the real story is that Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations.


Well, I am a veteran and I'm livid over this proposed dishonorable shirking of the United States' responsibility.


Your lividness and personal anecdote do not negate my point. Your fellow veterans disagree with you as they are heaping high praise on the package that you are going livid about one small part of. Naturally one heeds the majority reaction with a bit more weight.


Actually Handfleisch, the article you posted only says that the Veterans Service Organizations are giving praise to Obama, not the veterans themselves. I live in a town right next to a military base and many people in my family are veterans and none of the veterans or currently military personnel I know are happy about this at all. The VSO's are happy because it will give them more money. This won't really help the veterans at all. As Ocalhoun pointed out,this is Obama throwing money around to make it look like he is helping. He isn't.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:

Well, I am a veteran and I'm livid over this proposed dishonorable shirking of the United States' responsibility.


Your lividness and personal anecdote do not negate my point. Your fellow veterans disagree with you as they are heaping high praise on the package that you are going livid about one small part of. Naturally one heeds the majority reaction with a bit more weight.


It may be your opinion, handfleish, that veterans are heaping praise on Obama's plan to make them pay for their own treatment, but I think the voice of actual veterans and veteran organizations, like the American Legion as shown above, have more weight.


Wrong. It's not my opinion. Scroll up. In the article I cited and linked to, it says "President Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations." You might read your own threads to avoid such errors. Then you would see that I (with a news article) debunked your assertion (from a biased press release) and showed that the American Legion's opinion is in the minority.
Moonspider
VA Budget: Praise and a Warning wrote:
Shinseki emphasized that this is only "a consideration" and not yet part of Obama's budget request. But members of the veterans' committees wanted Shinseki to know they won't support the proposal.

"Veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line... We should take care of those injuries completely," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Though she recognized that no formal proposal had yet reached Congress, Murray told Shinseki, "I can assure you it will be dead on arrival if it lands here."

Shinseki said the issue is solely about financing, and not about continuing to deliver superior care. "That is not discussable," Shinseki said.

Steve Robertson, director of legislation for the American Legion, told senators he was appalled to learn of the insurance proposal. The Legion and 10 other veterans groups sent a joint letter to Obama criticizing the idea.

"I could not believe that anybody would ever think that Great West or Prudential or Aetna or any insurance company has an obligation to take care of the men and women who have service connected disabilities. None of those insurance companies…put us into harm's way and shouldn't be held responsible for health care," Robertson said.

The administration, he added, clearly had not thought through the potentially adverse consequences this would pose for veterans' families.

"Some insurance companies have caps [on total payments] that could quickly be met if they [had] to reimburse for service-connected disabilities," Robertson said. The dollar caps could result in family members losing access to care. "Also it would affect premiums to where it may not be affordable, especially for veterans who are self-employed or…on fixed incomes."

When Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), committee chairman, asked how the Senate might close any funding gap left in the 2010 budget if it rejected the insurance reimbursement plan, Robertson had a ready reply. Congress, he said, should require Medicare to reimburse the VA for treatment of non-service-connected conditions of Medicare-eligible veterans. More than half of VA's current patient population qualifies for Medicare, he said.

Akaka didn't react to that suggestion. But it was embraced by Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), chairman of the House committee, when Robertson raised it again during the House hearing on the VA budget.

Is it really time to take that issue on? Filner asked.

"We're bringing in Priority Group 8 veterans and trying to figure out how to pay for them and how to hire extra doctors, nurses, providers," Robertson said. Medicare dollars present "a logical revenue stream."

"If you guys are ready to work with us, we'll take that on. I agree with you," said Filner. But won't Americans see it simply as taking dollars from one government pocket and putting it in another, Filner asked.

"Sir, I've been paying Medicare since the day I started working," said Robertson. "That's a benefit I'm entitled to….If I choose to go to the VA, I should be able to take my health care dollars with me."

"I think we have to take on that fight," Filner told him.


The rest of the article from military.com. It's not a small issue and it is a proposal that will be killed, I have no doubt.

Respectfully,
M
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

It may be your opinion, handfleish, that veterans are heaping praise on Obama's plan to make them pay for their own treatment, but I think the voice of actual veterans and veteran organizations, like the American Legion as shown above, have more weight.


Wrong. It's not my opinion. Scroll up. In the article I cited and linked to, it says "President Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations." You might read your own threads to avoid such errors. Then you would see that I (with a news article) debunked your assertion (from a biased press release) and showed that the American Legion's opinion is in the minority.





I do read my threads. I also read your sources, even the parts that you like to leave out. Like these sections below from the article you cited that call your theory/opinion into question. (BTW Shinseki is Obama's VA Secretary.)

Quote:

Shinseki emphasized that this is only "a consideration" and not yet part of Obama's budget request. But members of the veterans' committees wanted Shinseki to know they won't support the proposal.


Quote:

Veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line... We should take care of those injuries completely," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Though she recognized that no formal proposal had yet reached Congress, Murray told Shinseki, "I can assure you it will be dead on arrival if it lands here."


Quote:

Steve Robertson, director of legislation for the American Legion, told senators he was appalled to learn of the insurance proposal. The Legion and 10 other veterans groups sent a joint letter to Obama criticizing the idea.


Quote:

The administration, he added, clearly had not thought through the potentially adverse consequences this would pose for veterans' families.
handfleisch
That's funny. Yes the article I cited (I don't cut and paste entirety of long articles --not as part of a massive cover-up -- but because they are long and that's what links are for) details the minority view, like any decent article would. That doesn't contradict the overall truth of the article, that being

Quote:
Many Cheers, Single Boo, Greet Obama's Budget for Vets

President Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations for proposing a Department of Veterans Affairs budget that would exceed by $1.3 billion what even VSOs suggested be spent next year.


Obama presents a package that is overwhelmingly positive towards and welcomed by the vets, and yet certain people will keep making that "single boo" molehill into a mountain. Well, however you get your kicks...
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
That's funny. Yes the article I cited (I don't cut and paste entirety of long articles --not as part of a massive cover-up -- but because they are long and that's what links are for) details the minority view, like any decent article would. That doesn't contradict the overall truth of the article, that being

Quote:
Many Cheers, Single Boo, Greet Obama's Budget for Vets

President Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations for proposing a Department of Veterans Affairs budget that would exceed by $1.3 billion what even VSOs suggested be spent next year.


Obama presents a package that is overwhelmingly positive towards and welcomed by the vets, and yet certain people will keep making that "single boo" molehill into a mountain. Well, however you get your kicks...


So in your world, when members of the veterans' committees say they "won't support the proposal," senators say that "it will be dead on arrival" and when 11 veterans group send a joint letter to Obama ctitcizing his scheme to make veterans pay for service-related injuries, it translates into something that is "overwhelmingly positive and welcomed by vets"?

Earth to handfleisch...
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:


Earth to handfleisch...


Pointless...
That one lost radio contact a long time ago.

He'll (She'll?) continue to insist that his one article is absolute proof of his opinions despite any and all contrary evidence.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
Obama presents a package that is overwhelmingly positive towards and welcomed by the vets, and yet certain people will keep making that "single boo" molehill into a mountain. Well, however you get your kicks...


Yes, there are positive aspects to the proposal. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I believe Obama to be sincere in his efforts to increase veteran care. I am particularly pleased with the efforts to increase psychological care, which is still lacking despite the progress made over the years, in my opinion.

However the positive elements do not minimize the importance of the proposal. It’s far from a “molehill.” As pointed out, eleven veteran organizations objected to it, as did senators. Why would you, whom I assume would not be affected by this proposal, minimize the serious misgivings of others who would be affected by it or who know people who would be affected by it?

In truth, I don’t understand why the proposal was ever made. It will be dead on arrival. In fact, I don’t think the idea will get any further than the discussion yesterday and the administration knew this. Making this consideration public was meant to serve some purpose, I am sure. However it wasn’t to debate the proposal.

The shell games of Washington never cease and I gave up long ago trying to keep track of the ball.


BTW, here's an article from CNN on the subject:
Veterans groups irate at Obama's private insurance proposal

Respectfully,
M
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Obama presents a package that is overwhelmingly positive towards and welcomed by the vets, and yet certain people will keep making that "single boo" molehill into a mountain. Well, however you get your kicks...


Yes, there are positive aspects to the proposal. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I believe Obama to be sincere in his efforts to increase veteran care. I am particularly pleased with the efforts to increase psychological care, which is still lacking despite the progress made over the years, in my opinion.

However the positive elements do not minimize the importance of the proposal. It’s far from a “molehill.” As pointed out, eleven veteran organizations objected to it, as did senators. Why would you, whom I assume would not be affected by this proposal, minimize the serious misgivings of others who would be affected by it or who know people who would be affected by it?

In truth, I don’t understand why the proposal was ever made. It will be dead on arrival. In fact, I don’t think the idea will get any further than the discussion yesterday and the administration knew this. Making this consideration public was meant to serve some purpose, I am sure. However it wasn’t to debate the proposal.


I don't minimize the misgivings about this proposal; I point out that to characterize all the reaction to the entire package by focusing on the reaction to one proposal within it is misleading at best. I point out that though controversy and scandal is the bread and butter of journalism, maybe, just maybe, the sky isn't falling because one part of an otherwise totally acceptable program is off. I point out that this was being used by people suffering this syndrome (a nice right wing link for you all http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/avoiding-the-clutches-of-obama-derangement-syndrome/)
As with any package, probably the part that had problems will get fixed, and life will go on.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Whether you liked Bush or not, the differing of opinions of the two from US servicemen and women is apparent. Notice how Bush receives a warm and rowdy welcome while Obama receives a lukewarm welcome at best.

Bush's reception:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6epBwrGNhs

Obama's reception:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZYVbO4HmM


Now I think part of this is just an initial distrust of Obama due to the Democrats' stance against servicemen and women in the 90s (I was in the Marines during the Clinton Administration, and moral and environment was grim at best). The military may come around and warm up to Obama, but given his own stances, I won't hold my breath.


Slightly more solid than crowd shots on youtube: according to campaign contributions, American troops overseas supported Obama 6 to 1 over McCain. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:


Earth to handfleisch...


Pointless...
That one lost radio contact a long time ago.

He'll (She'll?) continue to insist that his one article is absolute proof of his opinions despite any and all contrary evidence.

Hint: maybe when people stop replying to you, it isn't something wrong with them. Though on the thread http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-101898-2.html you did at least have a glimmer of understanding, when you starting pleading for "mutual respect" after getting nothing but laughs by dismissing history books as liberal propaganda. Add in your speculation that Obama might be a terrorist sympathizer, and no wonder people give up bothering.

There was likewise that one thread on economics where Bikerman and liljp617 seemed to give up on talking sense to Jimi. Can't find the thread but I guess I should have learned from it -- it took him calling a Nobel Laureate "fluff" before I finally did. To their credit, Bikerman or liljp617 occasionally come and talk Calhoun and Jimi off their respective ledges. Should charge for therapy.

Whereas DH and Xan -- comparing Obama to "all fascist and/or socialist leaders in history" pretty much dotted all the i's in their certification of lala land. http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-104000-2.html

In starting a Frihost account, it took me a while to realize the politics forum was a mini Freeperville www.freerepublic.com monopolized by such harebrained, Rush-fed and Fox-led nonsense and longer still to be objective about it. Fortunately, with a good dose of Daily Show this week (Stewart vs Kramer) I remembered that it is totally appropriate that fringe-types hang out in obscure forums having inbred discussions about Obama-as-Hitler, about how taxcuts for 90% of the public can only be called a tax increase, etc etc. So sorry I disturbed the process. Carry on.
Xanatos
^^Well since we are on the subject of people on this forum...

Handfleisch, you seem to have a problem. You think that everything Obama did, is doing, and ever will do is absolutely holy. To you, the man can do no wrong. Will Obama do some good? Im sure he will do plenty. Will he do some bad? I'm sure he will be doing plenty of that too.

You cannot ever let yourself believe that the people leading your country are great moral figures, or that they are walking saints who will save everything. When it comes to presidents and other politicians you must always be skeptical. It is when people in a country stop questioning the actions of their leader that things go very wrong.

Oh and by the way, I hate fox news.
deanhills
Xanatos wrote:
Handfleisch, you seem to have a problem. You think that everything Obama did, is doing, and ever will do is absolutely holy. To you, the man can do no wrong. Will Obama do some good? Im sure he will do plenty. Will he do some bad? I'm sure he will be doing plenty of that too.

Well put Xanatos, for me too. But I wonder whether Handfleisch's zealous devotion of Obama is really about Obama. I suspect it is more about idealism and campaigning for what he may perceive as being the "underdog" that needs major protection from the "evil" Republican Party Smile

Who knows, maybe in a year or more when this is all history, he may have to defend someone different against all the perceived evils that had been committed by Obama's Government. I suspect with the billions worth bail-out monies and knowing that Government is incapable of managing money that future corruption is a real threat. If the people of the United States knows what is good for them, they need to insist on having a Watchdog Committee (with international experts on it as well) watch the spending of Government bail-out monies, especially monies that are invested in billions in Banks. When you get to billions, millions become short change and the same greedy Bankers responsible for the present bad debts are still running those banks and may do business with needy Government officials in the same way as before, for obvious maximum advantage for themselves and their Banks, rather than for those that all of this has been intended, i.e. the people who voted the bail-out package.
jmi256
I don’t think Obama is going to make much headway in winning over the military by characterizing them as extremists and lumping them in with white supremacists.

Now I may be naive, but when I was in the Marines I was actually amazed at well those of different cultures and races got along. Granted some “cliques” existed where some blacks or Latinos hung out with each other during off hours, but I always thought that was due to a cultural bond rather than racism. In all we got along pretty well and found a common bond in even those most unlike ourselves (on the outside). In fact it was drilled into us from the onset that there was only one color in the Marines: GREEN!

Quote:

Veterans a Focus of FBI Extremist Probe

WASHINGTON – The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.

The initiative, dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle, was outlined in February, two months before a memo giving a similar warning was issued on April 7 by the Department of Homeland Security.

Disclosure of the DHS memo this week has sparked controversy among some conservatives and veterans groups. Appearing on television talk shows Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the assessment, but apologized to veterans who saw it as an accusation.

"This is an assessment of things just to be wary of, not to infringe on constitutional rights, certainly not to malign our veterans," she said on NBC's Today Show.

The documents outlining Operation Vigilant Eagle cite a surge in activity by such groups. The memos say the FBI's focus on veterans began as far back as December, during the final weeks of the Bush administration, when the bureau's domestic counterterrorism division formed a special joint working group with the Defense Department.

A Feb. 23 draft memo from FBI domestic counterterrorism leaders, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, cited an "increase in recruitment, threatening communications and weapons procurement by white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups."

The FBI said in the memo that its conclusion about a surge in such activities was based on confidential sources, undercover operations, reporting from other law-enforcement agencies and publicly available information. The memo said the main goal of the multipronged operation was to get a better handle on "the scope of this emerging threat." The operation also seeks to identify gaps in intelligence efforts surrounding these groups and their leaders.

The aim of the FBI's effort with the Defense Department, which was rolled into the Vigilant Eagle program, is to "share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat," according to the Feb. 23 FBI memo.

Michael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.

"We're not doing an investigation into the military, we're not looking at former military members," he said. "It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they're concerned is involved" with extremist groups.

Mr. Ward said that the FBI's general counsel reviewed the operation before it began, "to make sure any tripwires we set do not violate any civil liberties."

Some Republican lawmakers, talk-show hosts and veterans groups complained this week after the internal DHS assessment cited the potential for the same extremists groups to target returning combat veterans for recruitment. The Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, also echoed the concerns.

The separate DHS assessment, leaked this week after being sent to law-enforcement agencies, said the "willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." Veterans could draw special attention, the report said, because of their advanced training.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said Wednesday he was offended that veterans were characterized as potential domestic terrorists.

Amy Kudwa, a DHS spokeswoman, said Thursday the report was issued before an objection about one part of the document raised by the agency's civil-rights division was resolved. She called it a "breakdown of an internal process" that would be fixed.

The FBI documents show the bureau was working with investigators inside the nation's uniformed services "in an effort to identify those current or former soldiers who pose a domestic terrorism threat." The other agencies working with the FBI are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Documents detailing the operation are unclassified, but were meant for internal distribution only.


Source = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123992665198727459.html
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
I don’t think Obama is going to make much headway in winning over the military by characterizing them as extremists and lumping them in with white supremacists.

Now I may be naive, but when I was in the Marines I was actually amazed at well those of different cultures and races got along. Granted some “cliques” existed where some blacks or Latinos hung out with each other during off hours, but I always thought that was due to a cultural bond rather than racism. In all we got along pretty well and found a common bond in even those most unlike ourselves (on the outside). In fact it was drilled into us from the onset that there was only one color in the Marines: GREEN!
Source = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123992665198727459.html

The part that worries me the most is when good intentions of checking up on activities like these start to go haywire and innocent people are harassed in the process.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
I don’t think Obama is going to make much headway in winning over the military by characterizing them as extremists and lumping them in with white supremacists.

Now I may be naive, but when I was in the Marines I was actually amazed at well those of different cultures and races got along. Granted some “cliques” existed where some blacks or Latinos hung out with each other during off hours, but I always thought that was due to a cultural bond rather than racism. In all we got along pretty well and found a common bond in even those most unlike ourselves (on the outside). In fact it was drilled into us from the onset that there was only one color in the Marines: GREEN!

Quite so. I've never seen people of different races get along together as well as they do in the military.

Why is this? For one thing, training includes anti-racism messages. The main reason though, is that in training and in war, people are often forced to work together, live together, and rely on each other, regardless of race.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I don’t think Obama is going to make much headway in winning over the military by characterizing them as extremists and lumping them in with white supremacists.

Now I may be naive, but when I was in the Marines I was actually amazed at well those of different cultures and races got along. Granted some “cliques” existed where some blacks or Latinos hung out with each other during off hours, but I always thought that was due to a cultural bond rather than racism. In all we got along pretty well and found a common bond in even those most unlike ourselves (on the outside). In fact it was drilled into us from the onset that there was only one color in the Marines: GREEN!

Quite so. I've never seen people of different races get along together as well as they do in the military.

Why is this? For one thing, training includes anti-racism messages. The main reason though, is that in training and in war, people are often forced to work together, live together, and rely on each other, regardless of race.
Nice to read about stuff like this. I can imagine that candidates who are screened for marines have to have character attributes as well that would focus more on team than on ideology. Personal and emotional bias may be screened out to a big extent? And even if they should slip through, the team focus would sort out personal and emotional bias quite early in the training process?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Nice to read about stuff like this. I can imagine that candidates who are screened for marines have to have character attributes as well that would focus more on team than on ideology. Personal and emotional bias may be screened out to a big extent? And even if they should slip through, the team focus would sort out personal and emotional bias quite early in the training process?

Actually, almost all that screening would happen during basic training, and then in follow-on training.
If a trainee's racism was causing problems, he would be very 'encouraged' to give up those attitudes and stop with the problems. If he still didn't stop, he'd fail and be kicked out.
If they slip through, they can still be singled out later. If a low-ranking person makes problems with his racist attitudes, he'll be punished or kicked out by his supervisor. If the racist person is the supervisor, then the people being discriminated against can go to the MEO (military equal opportunity) office and file a complaint, which can get that supervisor punished or fired.

The initial screening of who can join and who can't is mostly based on intelligence tests, physical health, and criminal history.
People with mental and emotional issues either get fixed or fired during training.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
I don’t think Obama is going to make much headway in winning over the military by characterizing them as extremists and lumping them in with white supremacists.


For the record, this report, ordered by the Bush admin, simply says that returning vets could be potential recruiting targets for domestic terrorists, due to their skills and any possible PTSD. According to the link, it's just an attempt to learn from history in order to protect the American people:

Quote:
The separate DHS assessment, leaked this week after being sent to law-enforcement agencies, said the "willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." Veterans could draw special attention, the report said, because of their advanced training.


Of all the right wing talking points lately, this one is particularly sick -- to play politics with an FBI/DHS report this way, to say Obama's lumping vets in with white supramacists when it was Bush who ordered the report and the report doesn't say that, is just so dishonest. It's also unconscionable in terms of its effect on the morale of the US. Pundits who would twist this report this way really don't care about the country.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Of all the right wing talking points lately, this one is particularly sick -- to play politics with an FBI/DHS report this way, to say Obama's lumping vets in with white supramacists when it was Bush who ordered the report and the report doesn't say that, is just so dishonest. It's also unconscionable in terms of its effect on the morale of the US. Pundits who would twist this report this way really don't care about the country.
Almost as dishonest as Obama cashing in on Bush criticism, including GITMO? Have you seen any prisoners released lately? Twisted Evil
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Have you seen any prisoners released lately? Twisted Evil

I don't want to see simple releases... I want to see trials.
If there's not enough evidence, have a trial, dismiss the charges for lack of evidence, then release that prisoner.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Have you seen any prisoners released lately? Twisted Evil

I don't want to see simple releases... I want to see trials.
If there's not enough evidence, have a trial, dismiss the charges for lack of evidence, then release that prisoner.
OK. Let's rephrase this then. Have we seen any trials, or for that matter, any trial dates yet?
jmi256
Maybe it's just me, but if Obama and the Democrats are going to say they are going to spend money supporting our troops, making sure they are safe and able to complete the task they have been charged with, shouldn’t that money go toward the troops rather than their pet projects?

Quote:

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects
Study finds $2.6 billion taken from guns and ammunition


Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

Source = http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/troop-funds-diverted-to-pet-projects/
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Maybe it's just me

you're catching on
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Maybe it's just me

you're catching on


Thanks for that ever so insightful post, handfleisch. It's really indicative of the breadth and depth of your contributions to the board.
Related topics
Taiwan- China or U.S.
Can anyone (preferrably a Republican fan-boy) splane this?
MLK Jr's 'Bash Bush' event omitted some vital information.
UN to punish "blasphemers?"
State your Political Philosophy! (1000 FRIH$ to the best!)
Civics question
A rant on God, religion and morality
Hilary Clinton to be next President of U.S.
Atheists one of the most discriminated group in America?
Bailout bill fails to pass
Things only a Republican could believe
Indonesian president scared
There's one Bradley Manning
Who to blame for US Government shut down
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.