YA !!! what she said

Sadly Helen, I can give you a list a mile long of our military members who qualify for free and reduced lunches, as well as other benefits such as WIC (women infant and children) for when they are pregnant and the first year of the infants life.  We did - and Clark was an E7 - with 16 years service.

We have fortunately moved beyond those days, but you show me anyone else with 16 years service to a company (never mind one they have signed a check that offers their life and blood in defense of freedom) that would qualify for those programs.

What I would dearly love to do, but of course am unable (I am not allowed to display political discord in that kind of manner) is to march on the inauguration with a sign that says FRAUD WASTE AND ABUSE.

Just my opinion.

I'd bet if they took some serious stats they would find that there is a huge number of homeless who are in fact vets - is that anyway to treat the men and women who have defended this country?

Ok rant over, I don't want this to turn into a hornets nest, and probably should have kept my mouth shut, but I'm not real good in that area

Cat

monty wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 10:33am:

Forgive me if I have this wrong Helen but ...

She's not complaining about the private $$$ going into this event.  It's the $170,000,000.00 of public $$$.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

She has a good point.

-Dennis-

Monty,

How about doing it at the White House live on TV?  No crowds, no security, none of it.  Millions of dollars saved to spend on something else.

The big difference between our gathering and this one is that the GOVERNMENT didn't pay for any of our gathering while not paying our troops enough. 

Simply put, it would be nice to start cutting the crap which all our Presidents have spent on stuff like this and start being wiser. 

I am excited for today as it is a day I never thought I would see and I am excited fro that.  I don't blame Obama for doing it the way every other President did it, but I would rather they spent that money on other things.

DennisM1045 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 11:02am:

I stand corrected ... The Bush 2005 Inauguration cost a total of $157,000,000.00. 

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

It appears that this is the standard cost for a Presidential Inauguration and not some extravagant expenditure owed to the background of this particular man.

-Dennis-

Quote:


Quote:


source: Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

Thought you might find this interesting Helen.

with warm regards,
Tony

Quote:

That would be a nice change since cutting defense spending is usually high on the liberal agenda.

This may be in good part my fault for bringing up veterans.  Helen's original post, if I'm correct, was geared toward active duty military.  

I've been through both parties at the helm when it comes to the benefits and pay that is given to active duty military.  What is done to the vets is a disgrace no matter how you look at it, that is of course my opinion.  However, explain to me how millions and billions of tax dollars are spent on various programs yet active duty military after 16 years of service can still qualify for free and reduced lunches and other public assistance.

Yes there are always ways that service men and women find to work around the system, i.e. re-enlisting in a tax free zone.  

I do not wish to see this turn into an argument of us versus them when it comes to who is the commander in chief and what party he represents.  What about the men and women who put their lives on the line for your freedom to speak your opinion (and mine) for a wage that until you reach a much higher rank (particularly enlisted) would be considered at or below what is considered the poverty level for this country.

There have been many changes that have improved things for active duty, those changes are MUCH slower in coming for veterans.  Personally, I don't care who is inaugurated, I want to know why the troops are not paid according the risk of life and limb they willingly offer to this nation so that you and I can live the life we enjoy and spend the incredible amounts of money on attending an event such as the inauguration.

I do not see this as a party policy, it's been going on for too many years and too many presidency's for this to be a political party association.  Some are better than others for looking after our troops, but would YOU put your life on the line, in a war zone, under fire, say as an E5 with over 12 years of service for a mere $2828.00 a month before taxes, dental insurance and life insurance? Yes it is required to pay those deductibles.  If you're single that's fine, if you have a family and 3 kids, you are in trouble.  Yes, we get a basic allowance for subsistance, a paltry $268 a month to buy food if you don't qualify for the chow hall.  Can you buy groceries for a family for that amount?  As a side note, that figure is WITH the 3.9% pay increase that was voted into the 2009 defense budget.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

You can check the figures on that site.

This isn't about who is president or what party he represents.  Some take better care of the troops than others, but this about the state of the men and women who defend the rights and freedoms we all enjoy.

Ok, I'm done on the soap box.

Cat

monty wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 12:06pm:



Watching the pomp and circumstance of the big event on CNN made me think that the USA has gone back to the British, royal family (Obamas)and all.

a small swearing in ceremony would be sufficient and money saved go to those in need... absolutely..that would have been a great way to signal real "change"

Quote:


No, the obviously distorted hack video only tells part of his position - although he is opposed to militarizing space or building more nukes (we have enough as it is), Obama has said that he would both increase the size of the military (to shorten deployment times and reduce the strain on the military) and increase military pay.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or


In 2007, Bush strongly opposed the Democrat's proposed 3.5% raise for active duty, saying that a 3.0% was sufficient.

Quote:


I'm wondering if really helping the troops is important to some of the people here, or if this is another cheap attempt to score political points. Because the actual record of who has been for pay raises and improved veterans care is different from the propaganda that is being spewed. It isn't a purely partisan issue, and where there has been a difference, the Republicans have tended to say that the people in the military already get enough.

catlind wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2009 at 5:54pm:


Very true Catlind.  It is congress that controls the purse strings and many in this country do not even realize this. 

-P.