View Full Version : Bush Screws Our War Heroes

07-16-03, 05:59 AM
Bush Screws Our War Heroes <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
GOP blocking abolishment of Disabled Veterans Tax <br />
<br />
<br />
By Joseph L. Galloway <br />
<br />
WASHINGTON - Its formal title is The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003. Veterans...

Sgt Sostand
07-16-03, 10:38 AM
Bush administration has turned thumbs down because they see it as a budget-buster huh kind funny i bet they want cut their own
retirement plan. i really dont expect for them to do anything that dosent faten their own pocket

07-16-03, 04:45 PM
Bush administration has turned thumbs down because they see it as a budget-buster
Thats the first thing I took notice, also!
Why doesn't the millions and billions they send to other countries ever effect the budget?

Well, I guess it does, the Vets get screwed cause the budget is maxed out due to helping other countries!

Maybe one day, The Vet will be as important as other countries are to our government!

07-16-03, 05:23 PM
For what its worth, they were making ground for the Combat injuries. My hats off to those injured in combat, but I think it should be the same for all others.

I am 40% disabled and it all comes out of my retirement, just to be given back to me tax free. That is the only benifit. Small.


07-16-03, 05:35 PM
Part of my signature, words by General George Washington;
The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve
in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their Nation.
(George Washington)

If a man or woman served four years or less and was injured.
They get everything, but a man or woman, who served twenty or thirty years and disable.
Monies that they get , is taken dollar for dollar from their retirement check.
No others have this happen to them.
Something just an't right!

Here's my signature in full;

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

"I am tired and sick of war,
It's glory is all moonshine,
It is only those who have never fired a shot,
Nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded,
Who will cry aloud for blood,
More vengeance,
More desolation,
War is HELL."
General William Tecumseh Sherman US Army

"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom,
can never be restored.
Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
~ John Adams ~

Those who take freedom for granted,
Would be dependent,
On those brave souls,
Who are willing to pay the price for it.
And the price of freedom,
Will be paid at times unexpected,
By heroes,
Who didn't know they were."

" Duty is the most sublime word in the English language.
You can never do more, you should never wish to do less."
~ Robert E. Lee writing to his son ~

"Excellence doesn't just happen.
It must be forged, tested and used.
It must be passed down.
And woven into the very fabric of our souls.
Until it becomes our nature."
~ General Charles C. Krulak ~
31st Commandment of the Marine Corps

"We all have choices to make in this life.
We all have responsibility to recognize our options.
And to choose the path which best suits.
What we believe we can and could accomplish,"
~ Charles "Chuck" D. McAtee ~

"To control the past,
Is to give meaning to the present,
And direction to the future."

"tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
(Yield not to misfortunes, but advance all the more boldly
against them)

"Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before which
difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air."- John
Quincy Adams

The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve
in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to
how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were Treated and
Appreciated by their Nation.
(George Washington)

“The only requirement for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing”
~ Edmund Burke ~

Saepe Expertus, Semper Fidelis, Fratres Aeterni

"Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever"

"Death Before Dishonor"


Dave D'Arche
07-17-03, 09:56 PM
Hey Millrat you old warhorse....finally caught up to you. Nice to see you posting someplace............Dave D'Arche

07-18-03, 01:14 AM
Since I was not personally affected, I did not pay as much attention to this issue as I possibly should have.

Therefore, I may be wrong. My understanding of it is that if a vet is drawing length of service retirement pay and was eligible for VA disability pay, he was limited to receiving one or the other whichever was higher.

The argument was that if the vet opted for VA benefits, he received nothing for his 20 + years of service. If he opted for length of service retirement pay, he received nothing for his disability.

Is this correct?

If it is, my thought would be that full retirement is after 30 years. That after 20 years you could request transfer to the Fleet Reserve and receive Retainer Pay until your active duty and reserve time equaled 30 years, then you would be Retired.

While received Retainer Pay, you were subject to recall to active duty, while after the 30 year period, it would take an all-out war before you could be recalled.

My take on the situation is that since the vet was disabled, and unfit to be recalled, he should receive the disability pay but NOT the retainer pay. After the 30 year mark, he should receive BOTH the disability pay AND his retirement pay.

My position is not cast in concrete, actually, I'm groping around, trying to figure one out. I'm not sure it's worth the effort, because my vote, up or down, yea or nay is not going to affect the outcome one iota.

However, I do have friends who ARE affected, and if I could make some sense out of what is happening, and understand the argument for both sides, I'd be in a better position to help someone who was searching for justification.

There should be some machinery in place for equity. I haven't heard the arguments for and against, but several questions immediately come to mind. (Mind you, these are hypothetical, I AM NOT involved.)

1. I had 22 in going for 30, a nine month boot and I both were totally disabled by the same land mine. Is it fair that we both receive the same compensation? (If VA benefits eliminate retirement benefits.)

2. The 9 month boot says, "The Top had 20+ years of employment, to have and provide for his family, and to put money in the bank. Why should I be condemned to live on half the income he will receive? If I have a family I won't be able to support them. "

3. OR, one of the above goes on to be a computor programmer at $250,000 per year. The other one can only work for minimum wage. He wants to know why they are both receiving the same VA benefits.

4. Time in service, degree of disability, prognosis for recovery, future employability and earning potential, number of dependents, present and future, are some of the factors that must be considered.

I'd need much more imput before I could even BEGIN to participate in a semi-literate discussion on the subject.

I'd prefer to stay out of it if all I could add was " Well, life's not ALWAYS fair, is it?"

Sometimes it is, but we just don't like the call.

Semper Fi

07-18-03, 05:27 AM
FirstSgtMike, here is a little something that might help.

I did 20 years active duty, Doc's said in order for me to retire I had to go to the VA immediately upon retirement or they would not release me. Started receiving my "Retainer Pay" and went to the VA like a good little Marine and they determined that I was 60% disabled. Where they immediately tell me that because I will be getting disability pay they are going to take that 60% off the top of my "Retainer Pay". Now, I am still eligible for recall and the Marine Corps can override the VA and say that they are going to activate me when the need arises...... so is it fair to take a person's "Retainer Pay" if they are still eligible to be recalled?

Also look at it from the position of you put 22 years in and are eligible for "Retainer Pay" now all of a sudden you get hit by a truck on your way home from work isn't that considered in the "Line of Duty"? So why is it ok for the Government to say we are only going to restore your retirement pay if your disability is combat related?

We are told that we are Marines 24 hours a day so it shouldn't matter (unless you were doing something stupid to cause the disability) how you became disabled.

I think it is great that at least some of us that are disabled are going to finally get our rightful retirement and disability but I think that we need to quit sending all our resources out of this country for "Foreign Aid" and start taking care of the ones that took care of this country. JMHO

07-18-03, 06:42 AM

"so is it fair to take a person's "Retainer Pay" if they are still eligible to be recalled?" I would say NO.

"...... hit by a truck" is a little more complicated because there is liability and insurance involved.

Quoting my post; "Time in service, degree of disability, prognosis for recovery, future employability and earning potential, number of dependents, present and future, are some of the factors that must be considered."

I have some numbers (unverified) as to the compensation the families of 9/11 victims are scheduled to receive. The average is $1,185,000, with a guarantee of $250,000 and a high end of $4,700,000.

Some of the factors considered were: age, income, lifestyle, maritial status, number of children, AND country of residence of dependents.

Country of residence was considered because, for example, even the bottom line $250,000 would exceed the average annual income for a family in the Philippines for the next 100 years.

On the other hand, weigh the $1,185,000 average for the 9/11 victims against the death benefits for a G.I. killed in Iraq. His widow will receive $833 per month until she remarries, and his children will receive $211 each until they reach the age of 18.

Where does fairness come into the picture? How is it resolved?

Something else to toss into the pot are product liability and juror and malpractice awards. Remember the woman who got $1.5 mil from McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee on her lap while she was driving?

Is there an answer that would satisfy ANYONE?

07-18-03, 05:55 PM
Probably not! And you do make some valid issues I guess I am just onrey because I don't think that just because your spouse was killed during 9/11 makes you rate any better than our husbands, brothers, sisters, fathers or mothers that have lost their lives in this country (or in service to this country).

Yes it is a tragedy what happened on 9/11!

But I am horrified to think that my tax dollars are paying for that and we can't even help the families of deceased Marines, Sailors, Airmen and Soldiers that gave their all for this country.

That is the real tragedy in this dang country!!!!!!!!

07-18-03, 06:41 PM
I can't agree more about the 9/11 issue the worst part is I actually donated money to a charity for the familes and they are saying it is not enough in as far as what they are receving!

I want my money back! I would rather give it to a family of a fallen Brother then these whining people.

Here is an idea for the entrapanuer type (I think I spelled that right) Start up a non-for Profit Military Organization that steps in and helps out with all sorts of services for immediate families impacted by the loss of a veteran.

I tell you what, like we are already seeing here there is going to be somebody that would be excluded and say they should have that right as well to get the help.


07-18-03, 07:33 PM
I would like to have an argument against this but I am not effected buy it even though I am a disabled vet. I did not serve enough time (thus cpl) to get 30 yrs in or so.

However I was told from day one that you could not double dip from the Goverment. I was told that if I was to work even a Federal Job that I would loose what little disability I have fought for years to get, do I think this is fair Yes and No.
If the Fed pay/retierment pay more then compensates me for cost of living and my disability then that's great but if it doesn't then yeah I would have a problem.

My opinon! but I thought this being disabilty compensation. Was a compensation to help with the care and treatment for our disablities and a little extra because it may limit our abilites to hold a job, that it was not supposed to be something to live off of. I would love to make $2,300 a month.

Working a full time job and my disablity with dep's I still don't make that much. What I do make, has got me a new house, a car that is paid for, no debit, and I have learned to live with in my means.

07-18-03, 07:49 PM

My dear friend and fellow Marine Dave D'Arche veteran of WWII.
I was way over weight when this photo was taken.
I'm 50 lbs lighter now.
Workout three times a week.
Just got back from the track, did my mile of lunges, followed by three miles jogging.
Than it was combinations of lunges/curls...squats/laterial raises twenty per set of each...did 5 sets.
I followed that with my dumbell workout.
Than worked on the abs...
After all that, its time to go home for my evening meal.
Dave and I have to be considered as "Old Warhorses".
Great seeing you here Dave...

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo aka MillRatUSMC

07-22-03, 05:25 AM
"On July 9, 2003 U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts awarded 17 US POWs in the Iraqi War of 1991 $959 million in damages for their suffering, denouncing what the judge termed “unrestrained savagery” on the part of the Iraqis. The POWs stand to collect between $16 million and $35 million each, while 37 family members could receive damage awards of $5 million to $10 million apiece."

They will be filing claims against the Iraqi funds impounded by the US government.

Not to belittle in any way the pain and suffering of the POWs and their families, HOWEVER, I believe there are members and viewers of this site who can legitimately make comparisons to THEIR pain and suffering, and that of their family members, to that suffered by the 17 POWs and their families.

Shouldn't the factors determining compensation be equal??????

If we are compensating family members for "their" pain and anguish, does it depend upon whose wife cries the loudest, whose three year old misses their daddy more?

Were comparisons made of the families of the 17 and of those Vietnam vets who still suffer from PTSD?

I have problems digesting all of this. Will someone PLEASE explain it to me?

Thank you.