Unless something has changed, his parents might be eligible for some type of survivor benefits aside from any life insurance he might have purchased. I'm not sure about parents as I beleive he was single. I know for sure that spouses and children are eligible for sure if their loved one has been killed on active duty and as a result of said duty. I think it's around 1,000 a month The funeral is paid for of course and he probably did buy some type of policy. Even at that age I know I and most others did just in case. They give you seminars etc. on how to make those choices before you deploy. There is a memorial fund set up for him. I'll see if I can find it.
BTW The next time I hear some idiot whining about looting and the alleged museum looting tell them to shut up. Pfc James Herrgott from Shakopee MN age 20 was killed by a sniper while guarding the national museum to prevent the looting of some artifacts.
Here's some links if you really want to help the troops and their families.
Bill, The 2003 Budget is already done. It's 56.9 Billion Look at the increases from 2002, 2003 and the proposed 2004 budget and it's a 30% increase from 2001. 2001 BTW was Still Clinton's budget.
The President’s 2004 request for VA represents more than a 30-percent increase over the 2001 level and is the largest annual increase ever requested by a President.
So it's a 30% INCREASE over 2001 levels. And the largest annual increase ever proposed by a president. I know you don't like Bush but a 30% INCREASE in 3 years from Clinton's budget isn't horrid. The cuts you are talking about will get ironed out one way or another. You're looking at a very small picture. Overall 30% is hardly cutting the budget to the bone. It could always be more but again 30% increase from his predcessor isn't exatly an attempt to be unfriendly to our vets. You've assailed Bush's efforts. I understand that and that's o.k I hope you were as hard on Billy when he was spending 30% less a mere 3 years ago.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) operates the largest direct health care delivery system in the country. VA also supports medical research; administers veterans’ benefits including monthly disability payments, education assistance, life insurance, home loans, and vocational rehabilitation and employment services to veterans. In addition, VA runs veterans’ cemeteries across the country. The President’s 2004 request for VA represents more than a 30-percent increase over the 2001 level and is the largest annual increase ever requested by a President.  Â
But you're right. Bush is hardly cutting spending like those mean old Republicans are known to do. That's why I chuckle when I hear how Bush is supposedly shortchanging everyone and putting kids in the streets.
C'mon JT, Remember how us evil conservatives are always cutting things.
I agree that he's spending too much, although in some area's I agree with increases. The problem is that the decreases aren't coming in other areas. Like you said though, dammned if you do dammned if youy don't.
Bill, The presidents budget usually gets approved. Not all the time of course, sometimes it even gets added to. 30% in 3 years isn't peaunts. My point was that he (Bush) is hardly an enemy of veterans. You're looking at one piece instead of the whole puzzle. If the congress fails to enact his budget then adress them as well. 50 Dems also voted for the cut from the med pay. I didn't hear you taking them to task. My point is that you try to paint Bush as somehow unfriendly to vets yet he's increasing it more than any president in the last 50 years. Wether it's proposals or what's already been passed he's hardly trying to shortchange vets, 30% speaks volumes to that.
Yes, well the fact is that it is NOT 30%. Yes it is. I was talking about what it already has increased plus his proposed budget it's 30%. Sorry. Â Â
Also, the Congress might just be shorting the budget because of the almost 500 BILLION dollar deficit, expected NEXT year, on top of the already 350 BILLION dollar deficit, THIS year?
Might, being key the key word.
Now let's see...who can we blame for all those overdue "Bills"... GDUbbya and his TAX CUTS? GDubbya and his $1 Billion Dollar per week War in Iraq(That was over when he flew onto that Carrier?), or how about the whole Republican Party, for failing to lead this country, fiscally or pragmatically?
Right, it's all their fault. See how well the next election goes as to whom agrees with you.
I am sorry LUV, but I stay on top of the VA Budget, and the simple fact is that Dubbya's is a PROPOSED budget for next year and it will NOT amount to anywhere NEAR 30%.
Well this right here is directly from the VA.
The President’s 2004 request for VA represents more than a 30-percent increase over the 2001 level and is the largest annual increase ever requested by a President.  Â
It's not my numbers Bill, it's the VA's. It's 30%. Sorry.
BTW what a president proposes usually gets passsed when he holds a majority so it probably will. So when it does I assume you'll be the first on here applauding Bush and the R's for increasing it more than any other president.
Yes, and it is a PROPOSED budget, for God's sake. That's ALL I am saying. But one thing is a certainty... It will NOT fly...and what's more, he already KNOWS that. It will be cut by half, at LEAST. I'll bet you a lunch, at your favorite Mexican-Restaraunt, (near the corner of Dale and Grand) right now...OK?
"Now...as to history vs. reality, here's a story of interest to anyone familiar with GDubbya's history of being AWOL. Perhaps the Judges in this case will familiarize themselves with HIS service-record???" - Fold
Judges? What judges? Your party doesn't seem to care if we have any office.
"While the Republican majority in the House of Representatives shrunk for the 106th Congress, the margin stays the same in the Senate. Republicans can reject any judicial nominee they choose, BUT TO DATE HAVE YET TO DO SO. Mr. Clinton’s impeachment may weaken him in the ordinary legislative process, but his liberal legacy will continue to grow if the Senate continues easily approving these liberal activist judges."
"These are only a few of the many Clinton appointees -- MOST OF THEM CONFIRMED UNANIMOUSLY by the REPUBLICAN Senate -- who have rendered activist decisions harmful to the American people’s values and freedom. We must focus not only on the individuals being appointed but also on the individuals the appointees replace."
"Mr. Clinton had appointed 301 judges to the federal district and appeals courts. This amounts to 40% of all federal judges in active service. If he serves out his second term, Mr. Clinton may well appoint more than half of the federal judges in America."
The Clinton-Gore Administration has named 373 judges (almost 47% of the total)
The federal bench is now occupied by more Democrat-appointed judges (616) than Republican-appointed judges (596) and more Clinton-appointed judges than judges appointed by Reagan or both Bushes combined.
I'm not sure where you got your numbers crabs but only one of all 373 were not confirmed. He was 373 and 1 when he left office. And BTW, there are no fillibusters on record for a single one of those 373. The 373 was his total in office, which BTW was more than Reagan and Bush I combined. Clinton appointed judges FASTER than Reagan, even though Reagan had his own party in the Senate.
"President Clinton had 27 of 47 judges (57%) confirmed in his first year; we have had 27 of 64 (42%)
last I checked, 20 was not congruant to one." - Crabs
If you look at individual years, of course the numbers will swing your way. Except that they were later voted in during a subsequent year. Try again Crabs. 373-1 and NO filibusters. I only care about the total in office. It's like comparing the exit polls to the final official vote count on election day. Only one of those matters, and since last election, your party should intimately know which one it is!
Bill,
Unless something has changed, his parents might be eligible for some type of survivor benefits aside from any life insurance he might have purchased. I'm not sure about parents as I beleive he was single. I know for sure that spouses and children are eligible for sure if their loved one has been killed on active duty and as a result of said duty. I think it's around 1,000 a month The funeral is paid for of course and he probably did buy some type of policy. Even at that age I know I and most others did just in case. They give you seminars etc. on how to make those choices before you deploy. There is a memorial fund set up for him. I'll see if I can find it.
BTW The next time I hear some idiot whining about looting and the alleged museum looting tell them to shut up. Pfc James Herrgott from Shakopee MN age 20 was killed by a sniper while guarding the national museum to prevent the looting of some artifacts.
Here's some links if you really want to help the troops and their families.
Navy Marine Corps Relief Society
http://www.nmcrs.org/index.html
Army Emergency Relief Fund
http://www.aerhq.org/index.asp
Air Force assistance
http://www.afas.org/
National military families association
http://www.nmfa.org/
Bill, did you e-gram me ? I can't get them to work or reply back it keeps saying user unfound. If you did, let me know or re-egram it. Thanks
50 years ago today the Korean war ended. A thanks to the vets that fought in it.
I wonder how fold could forget the forgotten war?
What'sa matter fold. No one to stroke your ego here in 3 weeks.
He said he thinks you're cute when you ignore him.
If you are ignoring him, fold, how do you know he was directing the post to you?
He's looking in. He likes me.
If only Howard Dean gets elected I'm sure he'll turn it all around, he loves the military.
BTW, do you have a link for that story ?
Will do thanks, I probably won't get to it until tomorrow
Bill,
I'll get to your story later. Just so you know under his tenure the VA budget has increased 30% ! K.
Bill, The 2003 Budget is already done. It's 56.9 Billion
Look at the increases from 2002, 2003 and the proposed 2004 budget and it's a 30% increase from 2001. 2001 BTW was Still Clinton's budget.
The President’s
2004 request for VA represents more
than a 30-percent increase over the
2001 level and is the largest annual
increase ever requested by a President.
So it's a 30% INCREASE over 2001 levels. And the largest annual increase ever proposed by a president. I know you don't like Bush but a 30% INCREASE in 3 years from Clinton's budget isn't horrid. The cuts you are talking about will get ironed out one way or another. You're looking at a very small picture. Overall 30% is hardly cutting the budget to the bone. It could always be more but again 30% increase from his predcessor isn't exatly an attempt to be unfriendly to our vets. You've assailed Bush's efforts. I understand that and that's o.k I hope you were as hard on Billy when he was spending 30% less a mere 3 years ago.
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/pdf/budget/va.pdf
" know you don't like Bush but a 30% INCREASE in 3 years isn't horrid. "
Looks like righteous bucks to me. Outpaced infliation and GDP growth.
Bush spends like the Democrats you criticize.
I wasn't the one criticizing it ;)
But you're right. Bush is hardly cutting spending like those mean old Republicans are known to do. That's why I chuckle when I hear how Bush is supposedly shortchanging everyone and putting kids in the streets.
You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.
"That's why I chuckle when I hear how Bush is supposedly shortchanging everyone and putting kids in the streets."
He'll do that when he gets a bigger GOP majority in Congress. :-)
I think Dubya's spending too much and giving too many tax credits.
There, I said it.
C'mon JT, Remember how us evil conservatives are always cutting things.
I agree that he's spending too much, although in some area's I agree with increases. The problem is that the decreases aren't coming in other areas. Like you said though, dammned if you do dammned if youy don't.
A $1.4 BILLION INCREASE is meager eh fold?
What next!!!!?
Bill, The presidents budget usually gets approved. Not all the time of course, sometimes it even gets added to. 30% in 3 years isn't peaunts. My point was that he (Bush) is hardly an enemy of veterans. You're looking at one piece instead of the whole puzzle. If the congress fails to enact his budget then adress them as well. 50 Dems also voted for the cut from the med pay. I didn't hear you taking them to task. My point is that you try to paint Bush as somehow unfriendly to vets yet he's increasing it more than any president in the last 50 years. Wether it's proposals or what's already been passed he's hardly trying to shortchange vets, 30% speaks volumes to that.
Might, being key the key word.
Right, it's all their fault. See how well the next election goes as to whom agrees with you.
Well this right here is directly from the VA.
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/pdf/budget/va.pdf
It's not my numbers Bill, it's the VA's. It's 30%. Sorry.
BTW what a president proposes usually gets passsed when he holds a majority so it probably will. So when it does I assume you'll be the first on here applauding Bush and the R's for increasing it more than any other president.
Didn't we have a bet on the 2002 elections ?
Yeah, doesn't BF owe you $20 or something like that?
(near the corner of Dale and Grand)
Is that La Cucaracha?
Geez fold, the guy goes to jail and still draws a paycheck?
"Now...as to history vs. reality, here's a story of interest to anyone familiar with GDubbya's history of being AWOL. Perhaps the Judges in this case will familiarize themselves with HIS service-record???" - Fold
Judges? What judges? Your party doesn't seem to care if we have any office.
"Look it up." - Fold
http://www.liberty.edu/chancellor/nlj/feb99/politics4.htm
Here are some excerpts:
"While the Republican majority in the House of Representatives shrunk for the 106th Congress, the margin stays the same in the Senate. Republicans can reject any judicial nominee they choose, BUT TO DATE HAVE YET TO DO SO. Mr. Clinton’s impeachment may weaken him in the ordinary legislative process, but his liberal legacy will continue to grow if the Senate continues easily approving these liberal activist judges."
"These are only a few of the many Clinton appointees -- MOST OF THEM CONFIRMED UNANIMOUSLY by the REPUBLICAN Senate -- who have rendered activist decisions harmful to the American people’s values and freedom. We must focus not only on the individuals being appointed but also on the individuals the appointees replace."
"Mr. Clinton had appointed 301 judges to the federal district and appeals courts. This amounts to 40% of all federal judges in active service. If he serves out his second term, Mr. Clinton may well appoint more than half of the federal judges in America."
Any questions?
yea...where are the actual figures?
The Clinton-Gore Administration has named 373 judges (almost 47% of the total)
The federal bench is now occupied by more Democrat-appointed judges (616) than Republican-appointed judges (596) and more Clinton-appointed judges than judges appointed by Reagan or both Bushes combined.
Are numbers somehow confusing to liberals?
Are numbers somehow confusing to liberals?
You should them struggle with words.
We all remember (It depends on the meaning of the word "IS").
For another example, if you want to see a neat trick, ask Crabby a question and see what sort of answer you get.
You never get an answer. You get a question.
CSC, numbers are confusing to liberals when they don't add up their way.
is the question somehow confusing to you guys? Here it is again...
still haven't seen that answer.
still haven't seen that answer.
Then maybe you should search for it.
I didn't make the claim.
You don't provide support when you make claims either, crabs.
Sorry crabs, I forgot to put that number in the post. The number was ONE!
Awesome BURN!
OUCH!
You got him CSC. He's made posts on other threads AFTER your 609.
oh yeah...nice burn...
too bad that it isn't true...
last I checked, 245 is a good deal more than 71% of 246.
let's get some real numbers, shall we?
President Clinton had 27 of 47 judges (57%) confirmed in his first year; we have had 27 of 64 (42%)
last I checked, 20 was not congruant to one.
intersting to see that THX is a That 70s Show fan though
I'm not sure where you got your numbers crabs but only one of all 373 were not confirmed. He was 373 and 1 when he left office. And BTW, there are no fillibusters on record for a single one of those 373. The 373 was his total in office, which BTW was more than Reagan and Bush I combined. Clinton appointed judges FASTER than Reagan, even though Reagan had his own party in the Senate.
Nevermind, I see where you get your numbers.
"President Clinton had 27 of 47 judges (57%) confirmed in his first year; we have had 27 of 64 (42%)
last I checked, 20 was not congruant to one." - Crabs
If you look at individual years, of course the numbers will swing your way. Except that they were later voted in during a subsequent year. Try again Crabs. 373-1 and NO filibusters. I only care about the total in office. It's like comparing the exit polls to the final official vote count on election day. Only one of those matters, and since last election, your party should intimately know which one it is!
intersting to see that THX is a That 70s Show fan though
Why's that, Dumbass?
:-)
now Red...
Hey guys, I moved the off topic posts to a new thread called "Miscellaneous" located in the "In the news" folder.
If you want to continue that discussion, could you do it there?
Thanks,
JT
FYI: That's a fake Bill Fold.
I booted that fake from here a long time ago.
Billfold...
How many people do you think read the stuff you post here?