Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on November 21, 2007, 05:23:00 PM
-
http://kdka.com/local/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html
The US Military is telling veterans severely wounded in Iraq to return their signing bonuses because they didn't serve out their entire useful term. These are people who had arms, legs, eyes and more blown off in battle.
Seems like a pretty rotten deal.
-
No kidding. But that's been our country's MO for veterans.
You're no longer of use to us so you're forgotten.
Minimalistic care, having to jump through hoops to get what's due, dang it's criminal. We need to revamp how we do things.
-
damn straight we do.
:mad:
-
check house bill H. R. 3793
-
Why can't the democrats support the?!?! .... oh .... wait .....
-
this is total crap.
I don't care what you are Dem, Rep or Joes freedon party, write your congressmen or women. This just makes me sick.
Even if it turns out to be true (which I dought) do it anyway.
-
Disgraceful
Utterly disgraceful
-
HA! Believe it.
-
before every ones blood pressure goes off the scale did any of you read HR 3793?
<>
it was a over sight, it will be corrected.
-
Must just be a DOD thing. I recieved a $30,000 bonus less than a year before I was medically retired. I asked my lawyer if I was going to have to pay that back. He found me chapter and verse from the Coast Guards personel manual where it stated that any member of the Coast Guard who is discharged or medically retired after having recieved a bonus "SHALL NOT" have to pay the bonus back.
As far as the DOD I don't know but if a soilder recieves an enlistment bonus, serves, and gets wounded in the process to the point they are no longer able to serve, then they have fullfilled ALL their obligations to their contract, and should be allowed to keep the bonus.
-
Why can't the democrats support the?!?! .... oh .... wait .....
-
Arlo, can you cite a connection between the democrats and this? Is this a side effect of the funding debate?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Arlo, can you cite a connection between the democrats and this? Is this a side effect of the funding debate?
What john want's everyone to see:
H.R. 3793: Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007
To amend title 37, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to continue to pay to a member of the Armed Forces who is retired or separated from the Armed Forces due to a combat-related injury certain bonuses that the member was entitled to before the retirement or separation and would continue to be entitled to if the member was not retired or separated.
Sponsor: Rep. Jason Altmire [D-PA]
Cosponsors [as of 2007-10-20]
Rep. Shelley Berkley [D-NV]
Rep. Robert Berry [D-AR]
Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU]
Rep. Nancy Boyda [D-KS]
Rep. Robert Brady [D-PA]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D-IA]
Rep. Corrine Brown [D-FL]
Rep. Christopher Carney [D-PA]
Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA]
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D-IN]
Rep. Michael Doyle [D-PA]
Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D-IN]
Rep. Barton Gordon [D-TN]
Rep. Phil Hare [D-IL]
Rep. Tim Holden [D-PA]
Rep. Darlene Hooley [D-OR]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA]
Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI]
Rep. Harry Mitchell [D-AZ]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D-PA]
Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ]
Rep. Jon Porter [R-NV]
Rep. John Sarbanes [D-MD]
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter [D-NH]
Rep. Heath Shuler [D-NC]
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL]
Rep. Bart Stupak [D-MI]
Rep. Betty Sutton [D-OH]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA]
Rep. Edolphus Towns [D-NY]
Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN]
Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]
Rep. David Wu [D-OR]
Rep. John Yarmuth [D-KY]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above, I'm told, absolves bureaucratic policy and previous practices under the current administration.
Why can't the democrats support the ?!?! ... oh .... wait ....
:aok
-
Pwnage :aok
-
Originally posted by rpm
Pwnage :aok
Reverse Pwnage:
The President’s Commission on Care for our Nation’s Returning Wounded Warriors, co-chaired by former Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary Donna Shalala, found that the Department of Defense (DoD) is unfairly penalizing our nation’s wounded veterans by not providing them with their full enlistment bonuses. This legislation would require the DoD to provide veterans who have been discharged due to combat-related wounds with the full payment of any and all remaining bonuses within 30 days of discharge.
TGFPB!
It comes down to an oversite, a republican finding the problem, and democrats running to it like rats to make themselves look like they provided the cheese.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Reverse Pwnage:
The President’s Commission on Care for our Nation’s Returning Wounded Warriors, co-chaired by former Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary Donna Shalala, found that the Department of Defense (DoD) is unfairly penalizing our nation’s wounded veterans by not providing them with their full enlistment bonuses. This legislation would require the DoD to provide veterans who have been discharged due to combat-related wounds with the full payment of any and all remaining bonuses within 30 days of discharge.
TGFPB!
It comes down to an oversite, a republican finding the problem, and democrats running to it like rats to make themselves look like they provided the cheese.
Which accounts for the large number of republicans co-sponsoring the HR. I see. Damn them evil democrats! ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Which accounts for the large number of republicans co-sponsoring the HR. I see. Damn them evil democrats! ;)
You do understand the process for co-sponsoring something like this at the end of the session, don't you? ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
It comes down to an oversite, a republican finding the problem, and democrats running to it like rats to make themselves look like they provided the cheese.
Is it also an oversight to not co-sponsor the bill? I've seen plenty of them with members from BOTH parties.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You do understand the process for co-sponsoring something like this at the end of the session, don't you? ;)
I understand that the HR sponsored by republicans based on the commission's findings had absolutely nothing in it about assuring enlistment bonuses being retained for those discharged from service due to disabilites received in combat. You do understand the ramification of that, don't you? :D
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3502
Damn them democrats! Why can't they support the ?!?! ... oh ... wait ...
:aok
-
Originally posted by rpm
Is it also an oversight to not co-sponsor the bill? I've seen plenty of them with members from BOTH parties.
The tactic is well known from both parties. You need positive press. You spread the word..."Stay late in the session"....everyone that gets the word stays, those that leave at the end of the day leave...then a co-sponsor list is drawn up, signed, and viola! It looks like the Dems support our troops!
Good on them, they needed the positive image that you all bit on. Bottom line: They took advantage of a clerical error (automatic pay deposits including deposits) and the troops benefited.
But don't let this discourage your taste for the Kool-aid, Arlo/ rpm. ;)
-
Looks like Arlo has a point that you have no witty retort for.
Did you have Cherry or Grape?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Looks like Arlo has a point that you have no witty retort for.
Did you have Cherry or Grape?
I tend to ignore the ignorant.
is unfairly penalizing our nation’s wounded veterans by not providing them with their full enlistment bonuses.
had absolutely nothing in it about assuring enlistment bonuses are retained for those discharged from service due to disabilites received in combat.
When wounded to the point of not recieving a full enlistment bonus, one is usually discharged. But I give Arlo kudos for attempting to taint the subject with colorful phrases to distract from the responsible party who identified the clerical error. :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Damn them democrats! Why can't they support the ?!?! ... oh ... wait ...
:aok
You recycled your own line within a single thread.
I'm a little disappointed in you Arlo. Regardless of the topic, I at the very least come to expect something literary from you. It's a sad day.
Gonna go get hammered now.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The tactic is well known from both parties. You need positive press. You spread the word..."Stay late in the session"....everyone that gets the word stays, those that leave at the end of the day leave...then a co-sponsor list is drawn up, signed, and viola! It looks like the Dems support our troops!
Good on them, they needed the positive image that you all bit on. Bottom line: They took advantage of a clerical error (automatic pay deposits including deposits) and the troops benefited.
But don't let this discourage your taste for the Kool-aid, Arlo/ rpm. ;)
Introduced (not in secret) on Oct 10, 2007. Damn them sneaky democrats. Their mindrays are keeping the republicans from supporting this evil resolution! Oy! ;)
I applaud the effort to rationalize the angst, though. :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Introduced (not in secret) on Oct 10, 2007. Damn them sneaky democrats. Their mindrays are keeping the republicans from supporting this evil resolution! Oy! ;)
I applaud the effort to rationalize the angst, though. :)
Fox has been reporting on this for 2 weeks? Did the news just finally reach the Democratic Underground and CNN? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Neubob
You recycled your own line within a single thread.
I'm a little disappointed in you Arlo. Regardless of the topic, I at the very least come to expect something literary from you. It's a sad day.
Gonna go get hammered now.
Well hey, repetition breeds repetition. ;)
-
Rip, nice tap dance. Why didn't the Republicans put it in their HR? Are wounded vets not worthy of their signing bonuses?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Well hey, repetition breeds repetition. ;)
You repeated a line, I'm repeating an all out assault on my liver. The humanity.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Fox has been reporting on this for 2 weeks? Did the news just finally reach the Democratic Underground and CNN? :rofl
Apparently it hasn't reached all the republicans in favor of sponsoring such a resolution. That or petulance was the order of the day ... week .... two weeks .... month. :aok
-
You need to understand that press release timing is everything.
What is happening this week-end?
What do you think one of the topics of discussion will be? ;)
Why were so few republicans sponsoring the bill? I already answered that.
So exactly what is your point, Arlo? That Repubs don't support our troops?
Or that Dems have a heart...?
I think we all agree this is a good HR. I don't think that the parties sponsoring the bill reflect anything. Do you?
-
Apparently five republican senators figured it out. Are you claiming the rest can't decide what resolution or bill to support the troops requires thier support until there's a press release out a month later? You're right, I need you to go into great detail about this. Especially with all the rhetoric the republican side of the aisle smears their democrat collegues with to score points with the public. :D
-
So why didn't the Republicans put it in their HR and beat the Dems to the punch? Not like they didn't have the opportunity since, according to you, they were the ones to discover this.
It couldn't be because most Republicans have never served a day in the military. That's just looney.
-
They left McCain off the committee.
-
will you guys give it a rest, it is being taken care of.
that is what is important.
-
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" ;)
-
Pwnage
-
Originally posted by Arlo
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" ;)
Like I said, they needed (and sought after) this very visible HR. After all, they have a lower approval rating that OJ Simpson had during his murder trial (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1389)
But the Democrats who run Congress have an 11 percent job approval rating. Let’s just note that in my polling in 1995, O.J. Simpson was at 16 percent.
Yep, your congress...that you elected Arlo and RPM begged for last year.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
This thread brings a happy, patriotic tear to my eye. It's not about the topic; it's about which party wuvs teh vets more.
Reminds me of the arguments over who contributed the most to the Asian tsunami a couple of years ago. Does the winnar of that argument and this one get a special seat in heaven between jeebus and their favorite political demagogue?
-
Originally posted by VOR
This thread brings a happy, patriotic tear to my eye. It's not about the topic; it's about which party wuvs teh vets more.
Reminds me of the arguments over who contributed the most to the Asian tsunami a couple of years ago. Does the winnar of that argument and this one get a special seat in heaven between jeebus and their favorite political demagogue?
You need not look at further than Arlo's first post on the subject to see who brought that subject up. :lol
-
Because the Good Lord knows you've never brought it up, Rip.
-
Ladies, ladies, please. At the end of the night I think we can all agree both sides of the isle, have voted on issues that have hurt our troops as much as they have helped them over the years. This situation is no different.
My question is, if this was a fast drawn bill, late in session. What the hell were all those Dems still doing there? What else was passed though at the last mins of the session?
-
Reminds me of something that happend here recently. Two volunteer firefighters were killed when the roof collapsed in a blaze. Later when one of their wives went to collect his final payment. She was informed that as he failed to complete the final hour of his callout, due to being dead, they were cutting 40 Euro of his pay. :furious
You really have to wonder sometimes at the mentality of some people in those situations.
Similarly after the Falklands war a wounded British soldier was informed that as he failed to return the rifle he was issued with. The cost was to be deducted from his pay.
-
I recalled seeing a documentry on the history of the US mistreatment of her war vets...
TIGERESS
below from --> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/229468/the_bonus_army_march_world_war_i_vets.html
"The Bonus Army march took place in June of 1932 where 20,000 veterans set out to urge President Hoover in protest fashion to sign the 1924 "Bonus Bill" which was something that had laid around for eight years since it's original introduction within the Congress in order to give those World War I veterans who had suffered hardships due to the war effort a little supplementary pay. President Hoover feared that this once again was another sign of people leaning on the government too much to cure their ills so when the angry vets came to Washington he dispatched the armed forces and local police to quell the riot. In the end several of the vets ended up passing away in the clash with bayonets (that's what was used) and other weaponry that the police used, injuring several hundred of this country's finest citizens.
The Bonus Army march was significant on several levels. First, it was the final straw in the re-election efforts of Herbert Hoover. Although he was so battered and bruised in a political sense his goose was probably already cooked anyway. The incident was really symbolic of Hoover's term in office because instead of doing something for his own political expediency he stood on principle and dealt with whatever criticism that was laid at his feet. Sometimes you've got to throw your ideology to the wind and know when to use some more benefic and believable rhetoric whether it's true or not. Even Abe Lincoln told a fib or two in his day for the good of the country."
-
This thread stupidly and eerily reminds me of people arguing over whose NFL football is better than the other.