Posted on Nov 18, 2015
Do you agree that Veterans Policy Is About More Than The VA?
3.93K
32
32
3
3
0
Do you agree that Veterans Policy Is About More Than The VA?
There has been a lot of negative press and things said about the VA and the continuing problems they face, but there is more to Veterans Policy than just the VA.
Here is an article that shares some of my views, but not all of them. Should the candidates be focusing on more than the VA?
You can agree or disagree or provide your own feedback RP Members
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/11/11/veterans-policy-is-about-more-than-the-va/
The leading presidential candidates, on the right and the left, are missing the big picture on veterans policy.
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson proposes we completely get rid of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), stating, “We don’t need a Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans Affairs should be folded in under the Department of Defense.” Donald Trump, on the other hand, has rolled out a plan to “make the VA great again.” How? By simply “firing the corrupt, incompetent VA executives who let our veterans down.”
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has politicized veterans health policy, claiming “the constant berating of the VA” by Republicans is part of their candidates’ “ideological agenda.”
It would behoove those seeking the White House to remember there’s more to veterans policy than the VA.
There has been a lot of negative press and things said about the VA and the continuing problems they face, but there is more to Veterans Policy than just the VA.
Here is an article that shares some of my views, but not all of them. Should the candidates be focusing on more than the VA?
You can agree or disagree or provide your own feedback RP Members
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/11/11/veterans-policy-is-about-more-than-the-va/
The leading presidential candidates, on the right and the left, are missing the big picture on veterans policy.
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson proposes we completely get rid of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), stating, “We don’t need a Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans Affairs should be folded in under the Department of Defense.” Donald Trump, on the other hand, has rolled out a plan to “make the VA great again.” How? By simply “firing the corrupt, incompetent VA executives who let our veterans down.”
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has politicized veterans health policy, claiming “the constant berating of the VA” by Republicans is part of their candidates’ “ideological agenda.”
It would behoove those seeking the White House to remember there’s more to veterans policy than the VA.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Elections
Election 2016
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 10
3
3
0
I suspect that Presidential candidates have larger fish to fry than veterans and their issues. We are a minority, a very small minority. We're not even a voting block, nothing some some minorities that participate in group-think. We also tend to be conservative in a world wherein progressive ideology dominates. So, no, I don't expect much...
(3)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL Ted Mc - Let's see, if I follow traditional American customs and practices based on individual liberty, I'll create the most successful nation and economy in all the world in all of history. If I follow the "theories" of the Left, I'll have murder and economic failure. Sure is a tough choice, isn't it?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; Possibly, but you would have to follow ALL of the "traditional American customs and practices" which would include having a completely undeveloped continent to work with as well as no disinclination to displace (or kill) the people who were living there in order to obtain resources without compensation.
As far as "individual liberty" is concerned you have to remember that it was the "conservatives" who kept women from having the vote for almost 145 years after the country was formed (and two years after they obtained it in Canada and the UK [as well as three years after they obtained it in Russia])
You also have to remember that "economics" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "individual liberty" and if you followed "traditional American customs and practices" you'd probably end up with what you have today - the world's second largest economy and a country which is ranked as someplace between 12th and 20th "most free" country in the world.
You might also want to remember that that isn't what I posted. What I posted was that if you followed the advice of the "knee-jerk conservatives" you would know what your problems would be (the same ones you have now) but if you followed the advice of the "knee-jerk liberals" you wouldn't know what your problems would be (they might be the same as the ones you have now or them might be completely new ones that you'd never thought of before and they might be greater [or lesser] than the ones that you have right now). I put the bits in brackets in for clarity.
As far as "individual liberty" is concerned you have to remember that it was the "conservatives" who kept women from having the vote for almost 145 years after the country was formed (and two years after they obtained it in Canada and the UK [as well as three years after they obtained it in Russia])
You also have to remember that "economics" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "individual liberty" and if you followed "traditional American customs and practices" you'd probably end up with what you have today - the world's second largest economy and a country which is ranked as someplace between 12th and 20th "most free" country in the world.
You might also want to remember that that isn't what I posted. What I posted was that if you followed the advice of the "knee-jerk conservatives" you would know what your problems would be (the same ones you have now) but if you followed the advice of the "knee-jerk liberals" you wouldn't know what your problems would be (they might be the same as the ones you have now or them might be completely new ones that you'd never thought of before and they might be greater [or lesser] than the ones that you have right now). I put the bits in brackets in for clarity.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL Ted Mc - You're batting a .1000. Conservatives kept women from voting? Where the hell did you get that from? Economics doesn't necessarily have anything to do with economics? Wow! You have much to learn and it's not my responsibility to teach you. I just hope that others aren't misled by those misstatements. I think it's now time for me to abandon this thread. Best to you and have a happy holiday.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; It sure wasn't the "progressives" who opposed the granting of the vote to women.
As far as "Economics doesn't necessarily have anything to do with economics?" is concerned, I'd agree with your comment IF that was what I had said. Since it isn't, I don't know where you got it from.
What I said was "You also have to remember that "economics" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "individual liberty" and if you followed "traditional American customs and practices" you'd probably end up with what you have today - the world's second largest economy and a country which is ranked as someplace between 12th and 20th "most free" country in the world.". Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - BUT they AREN'T entitled to their own facts.
As far as "Economics doesn't necessarily have anything to do with economics?" is concerned, I'd agree with your comment IF that was what I had said. Since it isn't, I don't know where you got it from.
What I said was "You also have to remember that "economics" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "individual liberty" and if you followed "traditional American customs and practices" you'd probably end up with what you have today - the world's second largest economy and a country which is ranked as someplace between 12th and 20th "most free" country in the world.". Everyone is entitled to their own opinion - BUT they AREN'T entitled to their own facts.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs, I completely agree that it's about more than the VA; however, the majority of action will be centered on that department. While I like Dr. Carson, I disagree on his position.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
It is unfortunate that even the Veterans in office see it all about the VA. The VA is the result of the true problem - "Veterans put it on the line for less than most minimum state wages" and yet for that investment - we get educated and maybe some poor health care. Someone mentioned it is because we are not a voting block - sad but true. That is what I think we should change and thing we can. Stop being the political stick and be the stick of the political engine!
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google