Why Won't Sen. McCain Support Our Troops?

Richard S. wrote:Where's your proof? I haven't added them up but as far as active personnel goes the suicide rate is much lower during the bush administration than the Clinton Administration and he wasn't even in a protracted conflict.

Full story here: http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/9474342.html
Military Suicide Rate Highest in 26 Years..Vets Urge Support Save Email Print
Posted: 12:14 PM Aug 30, 2007
Last Updated: 5:08 PM Aug 30, 2007
Reporter: Brian Dorman
Email Address: brian.dorman@wibw.com

A local group of supporters, veterans and faith leaders met in Topeka Thursday morning to show support for a funding bill that would support troops in health care, injury research and job training.

Veterans say it is necessary to support this bill and that Kansans need to urge local officials, especially Senator Brownback and Roberts to support this bill that is threatened to be vetoed by President Bush. (my emphasis)

They stressed that this is not about whether we should be at war or not it is about what we need to be doing for those that are at war and those that will be going to war when they return.

An Army Suicide Event Report discovered that suicides in the Army has reached a 26 year high alarming local and national agencies. It will be up to support from Kansas Leaders like Brownback and Roberts to vote for the Labor HHS-Education appropriations bill to allow funds for programs of suicide prevention as well as job training and homelessness prevention services.





From http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 5432.story
Military suicide rate

Tribune wire reports
9:15 AM CDT, May 29, 2008

The number of Army suicides increased again last year, amid the most violent year yet in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

An Army official said Thursday that 115 troops committed suicide in 2007, a nearly 13 percent increase over the previous year's 102. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because a full report on the deaths wasn't being released until later Thursday.

About a quarter of the deaths occurred in Iraq.

The 115 confirmed deaths among active duty soldiers and National Guard and Reserve troops that had been activated was a lower number than previously feared. Preliminary figures released in January showed as many as 121 troops might have killed themselves, but a number of the deaths were still being investigated then and have since been attributed to other causes, the officials said.



Just 2 links from the many available

LsFarm wrote:This is why all the DNC BS is just political drivel... it's just fodder for the masses to hear over and over again till they nod their heads in sync... just automatons being programed by the Media...

Still unable to point to ONE difference between GW Bush & what Sen. McCain has "promised" his policies would be, if elected Greg.

(this is the McCain campaign's major problem this year ....& why they will lose in November. It is not just the DNC, the Media or anyone else saying that McCain will be 4 more years of Bush.....It is McCain himself saying it!)



Photo Caption:
Get A Room!
or
Two Very Rich Men Out Of Touch With Average American's Problems
or
Both These Guys Think Things Are "Just Swell".......and they are....FOR THEM!
or
Think Either Of Them Needs A Coal Appliance To Keep Warm This Winter?

Here's a difference. John McCain has fought earmarks and believes the armed forces should grow.

George Bush is blind to the cost plus fee contracting, and has not fought any of that.

What has Obama accomplished?

George Bush and Obama had the same changing opinions on the Georgia conflict, until they both realized and took the stance John McCain took.

George Bush Supports our Second amendment rights. So does McCain. Is that a bad thing to be the "same" on. Not at all.
Obama just acts like he is concerned for political points.

Bush DID say he was not concerned about Osama. (Oct 2004)

John McCain is very concerned.

John McCain says:

Wasteful spending in Washington has gone from irresponsible to indefensible. Right now, even the government reports that one-fifth of programs are receiving failing marks. McCain will restore the trust that Americans have lost in their government spending their hard earned money wisely.

Stop Earmarks, Pork-Barrel Spending, And Waste: Veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous. Seek the line-item veto to reduce waste and eliminate earmarks that have led to corruption.

Eliminate broken government programs. The federal government itself admits that 1 in 5 programs do not perform.
Reform our civil service system to promote accountability and good performance in our federal workforce.

Eliminate earmarks, wasteful subsidies, and pork-barrel spending.
Reform procurement programs and cut wasteful spending in defense and non-defense programs.

Bush:

Bush talked tough about Congressional "earmarks," but don't expect his actions to have any immediate effect on federal spending, saying, "I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress. If these items are truly worth funding, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote."
By earmarks that are "not voted on by Congress," Bush means provisions that are specified in committee reports but are never part of the text of a bill. The vast majority of earmarks are of this type, so Bush is threatening to ignore or veto a fairly significant percentage of potential earmarks. But he's not going to do it until fiscal year 2009. By not including the 2008 spending bills, the Executive Order gives Congress months to finagle their way around these changes.

There is another thing different between McCain and Bush. I have named a few differences, and there are many more.

Obama, hasn't really fought pork, he just says he will. He did want to post earmarks on a website, but what good is that if the money wasn't stopped from going there in the first place?

And there is more. Obama's Illinois Senate record....can't be reviewed.

I have named a few differences, and there are many more. If people keep saying things over and over again, they like to make it seem like it is true, when it clearly isn't.

If Obama found out you were burning coal to save money, he would probably tell you to take it out of your house. He is ill informed on energy and is siding with the Global Warming/Man Made Climate change SCAM artists. John McCain has a less drastic approach, but still believes in the climate change scam, which I disagree with him on.

Bush has taken a good stance on the environment, refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty, and refuses to bow down to the environmental scam artists. There is another difference between the candidates.

Haven't read through your long post yet Easysteam but the only difference I saw was this:

EasySteaminBT wrote:Here's a difference. John McCain has fought earmarks ...

George Bush is blind to the cost plus fee contracting, and has not fought any of that.

McCain is right in the "Pork Barrel" with all the others, so your statement is just factually inaccurate:

...."Washington, DC - While John McCain today claimed that opposing the line-item veto "is in direct contradiction" with "a fundamental Republican principle of being economic conservatives and eliminating waste and pork barrel projects," he failed to address what seems to be a fundamental contradiction in his own campaign. [Face the Nation, 10/14/07] McCain has attempted to campaign as a reformer who abhors pork barrel spending, but as a U.S. Senator he has worked to secure exactly the kind of earmarks he now campaigns against, including tens of million dollars in local pet projects. In addition, McCain chose noted Washington lobbyist Tom Loeffler to lead his campaign fundraising team, despite the fact that Loeffler has made a fortune lobbying for nearly $40 million in wasteful pork projects.".. (My emphasis )
From here: http://www.dnc.org/a/2007/10/is_john_mccain.php

EasySteaminBT wrote:George Bush Supports our Second amendment rights. So does McCain.

So does Obama

EasySteaminBT wrote:Bush talked tough about Congressional "earmarks,"

McCain talks tough too....but does nothing but get more pork

EasySteaminBT wrote:I have named a few differences, and there are many more.

What are they?


Why is a McCain Presidency going to be Bush's third term?......Because McCain promises it will be!

There is no real difference at all!


(They even look like brothers!

Still spouting the DNC's mantra I see, too bad you can't see that you are just mirroring that DNC drivel.

ANYTHING you say the anyone will do in the future is just guessing. HOW can you say that anyone will do anything?? Untill it actually happens???

I don't' believe ANY politician, especially a democrat. I lost all respect for Dems with LBJ, Carter and Clinton.. everyone of these idiots cost America dearly..

LBJ: SS funds to be used to support government spending on 'The Great society'
Carter, weak, weak weak, and gave SS to imegrants who never paid a dime into the system,, guaranteeing the SS fund to go bankrupt.

Clinton: pure lying crook, between he and Hilary, the sleeze factor in washington reached catastrophic levels.. Hillary hiding the rose Law firm's incriminating documents under her bed while both she and Bill deny knowing anything, and bill redfining what 'having sex' means, while under oath... on national TV,, I almost believed him, I thought NOBODY could or would lie on TV under oath,, He should have been neutered in public, on TV,,, that would be justice.


Nope, The Dems don't get any respect from me..

Greg L

Still no Bush/McCain differences I see Greg.

LsFarm wrote:ANYTHING you say the anyone will do in the future is just guessing. HOW can you say that anyone will do anything?? Untill it actually happens???

Been over this a thousand times.....It's not what I say............It's what John McCain promises he'll do. (& I take the man at his word)

I'd much rather take McCain at his word, than even contemplate the nightmare our country will become under Obammamma.. He'll turn the whole country into a taxed-to-death stake like Mass is today.. just look what liberal democrats have do tho that state.. it's no known s Taxachussetts for nothing!

Greg L

.

LsFarm wrote:I'd much rather take McCain at his word, than even contemplate the nightmare our country will become under Obammamma.. He'll turn the whole country into a taxed-to-death stake like Mass is today.. just look what liberal democrats have do tho that state.. it's no known s Taxachussetts for nothing!

Greg L

Can't find it right now, but if you'll look at the actual tax proposals of both Obama & McCain you will find that Obama's plan would have all of us who earn under $250,00/year paying less in taxes than McCain's policy, which would just continue Bush's tax plan to benefit the rich.
No surprise there!

Edit: In last night's joint appearance to answer questions, both Obama & McCain were asked to define "what is rich?"

Obama said basically that it depends on a lot of factors but that, under his tax plan only individuals earning over $250,000 would pay a modest increase in taxes. ($12.00) The rest of us would pay much less than we are paying now.

McCain, asked the same question responded that those with OVER 5 million in the bank were rich! (thus, someone with 4.98 million dollars in the bank is not rich, according to McCain!!

No wonder these guys (Bush/McCain) are so out of touch!!

Someone please explain what this Republican tax plan is that benefits the rich? Bush bashers seem to think that the rich pay significantly less under Bush.

The last I knew we had a progressive tax structure in the United States. That is, on a stepped schedule, each progressively richer person pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes. How exactly does that benefit the rich? I and the rest of the citizenry are dying to know. Please don't forget that the top 1% of taxpayers, i.e. the super-rich, pay 39% of all federal income tax collected and the top five percent pay 59% of all federal income tax collected. The bottom 50% paid only 3% of all federal income tax. Many of the poor, due to Republican supported legislation creating the EIC, have NEGATIVE tax rates as low as -14%.

The startling truth is that under GWB the tax share for the top 1% is the highest recorded since 1986.

Please help stop the democratic party propaganda mill.

Just the provable facts, please. Let's not be loose on these "benefit-the-rich" "tax facts", OK?

mikeandgerry wrote:omeone please explain what this Republican tax plan is that benefits the rich? Bush bashers seem to think that the rich pay significantly less under Bush.

OK...I'll try to explain.

mikeandgerry wrote:The last I knew we had a progressive tax structure in the United States. That is, on a stepped schedule, each progressively richer person pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

Sounds great on paper, doesn't it?....Problem is most smart wealthy people pay high priced accountants to find the many loopholes that rich Congressmen have set up to cover their butts & who is left holding the bag?..........Us middle class slobs!
(The rich have their offshore, Cayman Islands secret bank accounts to hide their wealth from the IRS, the poor have their food stamps & government vouchers to pay for everything & who ends up paying the freight?....You guessed it........You & me in the middle class!)

What do the last few posts have to do with McCains position on GI benefits? Nothing...Locked, keep posts on topic or I'm locking more of them. We got 20 threads on 20 topics all of which have nothing to do with the original topic.