savage Keith Olbermann

[GM John]

1) You didn't just ask a question, you specifically said my assertion was false:
"Would someone please explain to me, if there have been any cuts (there havent) " 
If you haven't entered the debate, then you've started a tangential one.

2) Here you go and prove my point as if you understand it.  Do you?  And if not, why do you make my point so well? As far as 2b, as I've already said, it's been clearly stated in the links that the proposals do NOT keep up with the need, which is of course THE WHOLE POINT, and therefore, again, the benefits are being cut, even if the budget is still rising.   I guess you don't believe any of the references.  Well there's nothing I can do about that.  There's certainly no likelihood of you believing me any more than them.  So I answered your question, you haven't commented on any of the links, so as far as I can see you're ignoring anything I present.

3) Again, I know nothing of your situation, or your local provider. You don't tell us the services they're offering, which could be paid for from another governmental department, on a different budget line that hasn't been cut because of some kind of protection. You could be a candidate for special services.  Your area could have way fewer veterans that it was expected to have at this time according to the census.  I gave some other possible reasons last time.  Please don't keep asking this question if you're not going to give me anything to go on to answer it, and then ignore all the possibilities I manage to give anyway. And forgive me if one anecdotal example without details, even if first hand, doesn't overwhelm all the documented evidence to the contrary in my mind.  I of course understand why it would mean more to you.  Why don't you ask the VA itself why they're offering you more when supposedly they shouldn't be able to?  You're in a unique position to examine that.

4) One last time-- if the increases fall short of the baseline (a concept you've shown yourself to understand above), then the benefits are cut, even if the budget is higher than last year.  The baseline represents what they need to keep the benefits at their current level per veteran.  It in essence is a "Cost Of Living Allowance" for the benefits.  If you got only a COLA and no raise, then you have no more buying power than before, even if the numbers on your check are higher.  Your standard of living is exactly the same.  If you don't even get a COLA, then you are making less than before, even if the numbers are the same.  If you understand that, then to keep saying "but the budget isn't cut" as if it means more than the services themselves is disingenuous.

5) Stagnation is a hell of a lot better than damage.

Humorous note) since when does anyone expect a Republican who says they're going to cut taxes NOT to actually try to cut taxes?  The only question was who got the most benefit from them.   I'm sure there's plenty of promises he didn't keep though, which if someone listed them for me, I'm sure in many cases I'd be just as happy that he didn't.

[Horace]

Ok, this will be my last post in this thread, because it seems to be going in exactly the direction that is the reason I did not intend to get hung up in any long debate.

1, look at my whole question. It ended with "why do my benefits keep going up?". If it did not appear to you to be a question, then I appologize for not making it more clear.

2, Typically when people talk about cuts, they usually mean that the item in question is getting less money next year than they did this year. This is what (IMHO) the majority of the proponents of the claim of VA cuts want people to think. That is what I was responding to. Yes, there is a "cut". Yes, they are getting more money next year than this, so if it is important to you, we are both right at least in part.

3,  Do not presume to know what I think or believe. I find it insulting. I try very hard, sometimes not succeeding, to not make assumptions about what other people believe or know. I did not say the articles you posted were wrong. In fact the numbers they gave are accurate. They just do not tell the whole story.(again IMHO)

4, How much the change in need will be in 2010 is speculation at best. So far, the budget (which has little resemblance to the projections of 04) is keeping up with and exceeding the need. As I said in my last post, the budget is redone every year, and the projections and proposals change every time.

5, To my knowledge I'm not on any "special" programs. I get medical care and a disability percentage for my knees, ears and a few other things. The State VA does not set how much I get. What each % equals in dollars is set at the federal level, with cost of living modifiers based on what state you live in. The local VA just evaluates vets and determines what % they get. The annual COLA is tied to annual inflation.

6. "Why dont you ask the VA...." I have. They have more money, so they increase our benefits.

7. No. The benefits are not cut. The rate of increase is cut. Two different things. The increase in benefits may be dependant on the increase in budget, but if the final budget still increases by an amount that allows for a larger number of vets to get the same or more benefits, then "VA benefits" (which was the original premise) have not been cut.

I think it really goes to the semantics of what has actually been cut. While the budget proposals are less than the baseline projection, thus supporting the idea that the VA "budget" has been cut, people like me are still getting more, thus VA "Benefits" have not been cut.

Brian, who is now off to something he finds almost as entertaining as unintended political debates........
The dentist.

[GM John]

These's no such thing as rational discussion if people don't follow basic rules.

So Brian, you think you get to say (twice now) that the Dems (or "people") mean the opposite of what they're actually saying, and that you then get to say they're wrong when what you say they mean is technically incorrect?

No.  You don't get to do that.  At least not without me pointing out that's exactly what you did. You want to comment on what someone said, use their actual words. 

They said benefits, they meant benefits.

You don't like people saying what you think?  Don't do it yourself.  Golden rule.

And stop complaining about unintended political debates.  All *I* did was post a link, and have been fielding responses since then.  You joined it after it had already become a debate, and you're trying to act like you're only asking a question about your experience, but then you use that experience (valid) and false interpretation (invalid) to make a case against a point of mine, and somehow expect no debate.

I refuse to be portrayed as drawing you in unwillingly just because I respond to you. If you don't want to be in the discussion just stay the hell out of it.

The increase in benefits may be dependant on the increase in budget, but if the final budget still increases by an amount that allows for a larger number of vets to get the same or more benefits, then "VA benefits" (which was the original premise) have not been cut.

Right Brian!   IF!  And Congress has repeatedly reduced the cuts that this President has asked for, but I still maintain that Dems and everyone else has a right to yell HYPOCRISY when the President says questioning his war is "not supporting our troops" while actually asking for reductions that WOULD (if he got his way) reduce the troops' benefits.  The fact that he hasn't (yet) succeeded should not make people ignore the attempt. 

And if all this is due to my inadvertently saying that he cut them (he did, as far as his part of the process goes), without mentioning that Congress did in fact each time "reduce the reduction" to the point where at least in your case you didn't notice it, then I'm sorry. I frankly hadn't realized that and it doesn't matter to my point anyway.  To me his attempt is unforgiveable, and the hypocrisy is the same whether he succeeded or not.  I mean, if I point at gun at your son's head and pull the trigger, will you have a higher opinion of me if I happen to miss?

There are nevertheless, lots of veterans out there who are complaining.  One is quoted as saying "if you weren't wounded in battle, you get nothing" so who knows where the cuts so far have landed?  Apparently not all veterans are receiving "the same or more" benefits.  There's also lots and lots of new veterans being made now so let's see how far things are stretching in a few years.  We're only 2 years into the 10 year program of reductions.

And I'll bet, ironically, the Dems will have to cut the budget in all areas to make up for the greatest deficit in American history, which this President made all by himself out of the greatest surplus in American history, which he inherited from a Democrat who balanced the budget.

[Horace]

http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

Debate these facts.

[GM John]

First of all, do you want to debate or not?  Make a goddamed decision.  Don't you dare ask me to rebut a hundred points on a website you merely post a link to, and then if I do, you bail again with "I'm not here to debate."

And Brian, I already posted that link MYSELF.  You didn't have anything to say about it then so what exactly therein are you trying to point out now? 

Incredibly ironic that you should post the very link I did on Nov 17th. 

To you.  In this very thread.

Did you even read the whole thing?  I don't need to debate, the link makes my point for me, as I said before the last time I posted it, and will quote some here.  Oh, and since you say 'Debate these facts' so glibly, without specificly which, you obviously accept every word in the link as true.  Again, this is from the very link you (and I) posted:

"While it's false to say the veterans budget has been cut, and false to say that any veteran getting benefits has been cut off, it is true that funding is not growing as rapidly as demand for benefits"

"In January, 2003 the Veterans Administration announced that -- because the increase in funds couldn't meet the rising demand -- it would start turning away many middle-income applicants applying for new medical benefits."

The only thing this link proves for your side is that, yes, sometimes some people do in fact mistakenly say "budget" when they mean "benefits", and it keeps pointing out ONLY that "budget" is technically incorrect.  But the link itself shows that anyone with a brain and a heart knows that what's important is whether the people are getting the benefits, not the semantics.  The budget has grown more under Bush than Clinton, but HAS IT GROWN AS MUCH AS IT NEEDS TO?  BUSH'S WAR IS MAKING MORE WOUNDED VETS EVERY MONTH!

It also went on to explain why you might be inexplicably getting offered more benefits in your state, due to others who haven't been allowed to enroll, due to local income tests.  Yet another possible answer to your initial question.

I'm not going to debate links, you got something to say, quote it here or say it yourself.  I posted several links, all of which you've ignored so don't you dare try this tactic again.  I could post a hundred and just say "debate" if you want to play that game.

And if anyone ELSE is still reading this now, please let me know privately, as I don't think there's any point in continuing this with Brian alone if he's not even reading his own sources and can't be troubled to specify his points.