4
4
0
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
Suspended Profile
This is all too typical. We can spend $10 Trillion on Middle East wars, but can't fund care and benefits for veterans.
We paid for BOTH of those benefits (VA and SS) and should not have them taken away from us, any more than military pensions should be offset by disability benefits for those below 50% rating.
This is a huge breach of trust, and comes from people on both sides of the aisle in CONgress...
We paid for BOTH of those benefits (VA and SS) and should not have them taken away from us, any more than military pensions should be offset by disability benefits for those below 50% rating.
This is a huge breach of trust, and comes from people on both sides of the aisle in CONgress...
TSgt Robert Allen
Military pensions should never be offset by disability benefits for those below 50% rating; you earned both.
(1)
(0)
Sounds like a typical political move to cheese off people. And the VA wonders why they get a bad rap.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Can't stand the VA brother. I went to the VA to sign up for a claim. There were several Vietnam era veterans waiting. I spoke to one of them and he said that he arrived there after riding on a bus for 3 hours from South Texas. He was in a wheelchair and was waiting to be seen. While we were waiting, a lady comes out and calls out all OIE/OIF veterans to the front of the line to be seen first. I asked about the other veterans who had been there waiting longer than we had and she said we had priority. I was really upset and apologized to the Vietnam vet I was talking too. I told the lady that it was wrong as the day is long. She just looked and me and said, " not my decision". I told my case manager about it and he just shrugged it off. WTF?
(0)
(0)
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
SGT (Join to see) - they don't care, if it was one of their relatives though, that person would probably get priority care. Have a great day brother.
(1)
(0)
My thoughts may differ from some. I think that yes, they are approaching this from the wrong direction. Social Security is essentially insurance against getting too old or disabled to work and not having a means to live by. We work, we pay into the insurance and when we get too old to work then the insurance kicks in unless we have another means to live by. The people the article is referring to are in a special "Unemployment status" that the VA is paying because they are unable to work. Playing the Devil's advocate, why do they get paid from two pots for the same thing? So, cut back the one that pays the least (most likely social security) and leave the veterans with the other.
Besides, the next President will likely overturn this anyway.
Besides, the next President will likely overturn this anyway.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next