Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2985958
I find hilarious that you Obama bashers forget that Bush considered cutting benefits too.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...125064,00.html
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2986045
JP raises a good point. Where was the OUTRAGE when Bush considered the same thing?
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2986087
Darth, Usirchchris, Socal, Ruaround... gentlemen... I challenge each of you to show me a SINGLE post from you criticizing Bush for the same thing. If you can't do it then you are a hypocrit for coming her to bash Obama for it. My prediction is that you'll each have your excuses but not a single one of you will show me the post.
And the comments, "I hate him", "He's a moron", "His pockets are gettin deeper..." How old are you guys???
1. It isn't the same thing. The link provided talked about BUDGET cuts. (This means scaling back on employees, not ordering new equipment, etc...) . The Obama consideration is over making the troops PAY FOR THEIR OWN HEALTHCARE! See the difference.
2, From the linked article....
"The budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is funded for the current year at $35.6 billion, and would rise to $39.6 billion in 2008 under Bush's budget. That's about 9 percent. But the budget faces a cut to $38.8 billion in 2009 and would hover around that level through 2012."
So Bush increased the budget of the VA by 4 billion and then the next year decreases that budget by 1 billion.....This still equals a 3 billion dollar increase.....So technically he increased the Budget from it's previous standpoint regardless if he cut it by a little later. And again, the Budget cut does not affect the TRoops and force them to PAY FOR DEFENDING US!.
So I ask you guys, how do these two things even remotely relate.,.....
Nice try though....