Delete

[Guest rickb54]

delete

Edited February 19, 2007 by rickb54

[bigjim]

I absolutely agree with you Nathan, and my husband does too, a Vietnam-era veteran who did over 20 in the USAF and has been retired for 13 years... The only abuse that concerns me is that directed by the VA at disabled veterans and their families. Otherwise, I say good for the veteran, regardless of his or her age...

My opinion is that anyone who thinks a veteran who survives this grueling process gets something for nothing is sorely mistaken.

I agress ,, VA doe not hand out atta boys, just ah sh--,,,bigjim

[bigjim]

The VA is not worried about us old vets. They are worried about the Sunami of young vets who are going to be getting disability benefits for 40-50 years into the future. We of the Vietnam era are write offs.

the gov will promise you anything and every thing when the bullets are fling..bigjim

[Guest Dataman]

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06309.pdf

GAO Report that this msg is based on.

Interesting Read.

I won't post it here to save space (it's big).

DM

Edited October 27, 2006 by Dataman

[free_spirit_etc]

I agree. I agree. I agree.

I just did an extensive study on the history of veteran's benefits - working with my husband for his paper for grad school.

One of the earliest vet benefits was giving veterans a prefered location from which they could beg for alms. (That MIGHT pay better than the current system).

And lots of benefits are not really GIVEN to the vets - they are backloaded. Instead of paying the service member the amount they SHOULD recieve for their labor -- they "backoad" it -- by paying LESS to everyone - and promising benefits down the road for those deemed "deserving."

So the benefits are paid through money saved by not paying the vets enough when they served.

It is THIER money. It has always BEEN their money. It was just held back to pay them later (IF they are deemed "deserving")

Free

I absolutely agree with you Nathan, and my husband does too, a Vietnam-era veteran who did over 20 in the USAF and has been retired for 13 years... The only abuse that concerns me is that directed by the VA at disabled veterans and their families. Otherwise, I say good for the veteran, regardless of his or her age...

My opinion is that anyone who thinks a veteran who survives this grueling process gets something for nothing is sorely mistaken.

[robert51]

Quote from Free spirit I just did an extensive study on the history of veteran's benefits - working with my husband for his paper for grad school.

One of the earliest vet benefits was giving veterans a prefered location from which they could beg for alms. (That MIGHT pay better than the current system).

And lots of benefits are not really GIVEN to the vets - they are backloaded. Instead of paying the service member the amount they SHOULD recieve for their labor -- they "backoad" it -- by paying LESS to everyone - and promising benefits down the road for those deemed "deserving."

So the benefits are paid through money saved by not paying the vets enough when they served.

It is THIER money. It has always BEEN their money. It was just held back to pay them later (IF they are deemed "deserving")

Free

............. I agree with you.... the old army i am sure you will all remember we started at E1 and about 90 dollars a month shee i could even afford to insure my car our pay was so bad,, in viet nam with flight pay and combat pay i got i think 218 dollars a month. What i get now is pay for services rendered and not paid for at the time.

Edited November 7, 2006 by robert51

[jlshand]

Pete,

with all due respect, Vets of any age who are qualified by the rules should get IU even after they are "retirement age" because the rules were laid down in a less greedy, more honest time when the Government understood a lot better than now that ACTS benefiting patriotism were a lot more important than WORDS.

The truth is that at least the present administration is looking to make up for the gains of the wealthy it most supports ,by squeezing the rest of us including Vets. Its a total crime to cut taxes on the richest, overlook loopholes for multibillion profits of corporations, vote themselves midnight raises and vote in the silliest pork projects to keep themselves elected while on the other hand attempting to squeeze the relatively small change they do out of things like vETS programs.

The truth is our system is completely out of whack with service in congress being an objective rather than a patriotic obligation as designed by the founding fathers, lobbyists (now over 3400 compared to 64 in 1968) writing our laws to favor their special interests (primarily big business) and the gap between the rich and poor reaching historic heights.

We really have employed "trickle down economics" by the back door.

The beginnings of a partial solution is term limits and voting independent

Vets are definitely among the "have nots"

Read this story:

http://www.vawatchdog.com/old%20newsflashe...0-24-2006-6.htm

Folks wake up... time is coming that veterans benefits are going to become harder and harder to get. Our government can not afford to keep paying veterans, this thanks to a do nothing congress, and a war that has gotten way out of hand..

Now I for one never agreeded that veterans already retired at 65 and above should get IU. I know most veterans don't agree with me but I have seen and even helped many veterans already retired get IU for heart problems after they were retired for 7-10 years. This never made sence to me, but the rules say age cannot be considered in compensation claims. 65% of the New veterans drawing IU are over 60 years old, I agree this has to stop, most of these veterans are retired at 63-65 years of age, so why pay IU when they have already retired? Any way my opinion.... does not always agree with the majority..