Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Wounded Soldier: Military Wants Part Of Bonus Back

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ―

The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.

One of them is Jordan Fox, a young soldier from the South Hills.

He finds solace in the hundreds of boxes he loads onto a truck in Carnegie. In each box is a care package that will be sent to a man or woman serving in Iraq. It was in his name Operation Pittsburgh Pride was started.

Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and lost all vision in his right eye.

A few months later Fox was sent home. His injuries prohibited him from fulfilling three months of his commitment. A few days ago, he received a letter from the military demanding nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus back.

"I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they're telling me they want their money back," he explained.

It's a slap for Fox's mother, Susan Wardezak, who met with President Bush in Pittsburgh last May. He thanked her for starting Operation Pittsburgh Pride which has sent approximately 4,000 care packages.

He then sent her a letter expressing his concern over her son's injuries, so she cannot understand the U.S. Government's apparent lack of concern over injuries to countless U.S. Soldiers and demands that they return their bonuses.

While he's unsure of his future, Fox says he's unwavering in his commitment to his country.

"I'd do it all over again... because I'm proud of the discipline that I learned.  I'm proud to have done something for my country," he said.

But Fox feels like he's already given enough. He'll never be able to pursue his dream of being a police officer because of his wounds and he can't believe he's being asked to return part of his $10,000 signing bonus.

KDKA contacted Congressman Jason Altmire on his behalf. He says he has proposed a bill that would guarantee soldiers receive full benefit of bonuses.

This is despicable, yet I am not at all surprised. :no:

Does is suprise you with this "country"?

Just in time for thanksgiving too  :(

Thats USA for you

 :o :o :o

So is that

Don't bite the hand that feeds you!

looks like americans running low on money from all that wa ssucked up in its war machine.

so screw over the soldiers to get it back, lovely.

Kind of reminds me of how California is the only state in the union that will not pay for a college education for its military servicemen.

This coming from a state(that's right, a state) that has the seventh or eighth largest economy in the world! How despicable of California! :rant:

Clown Shoez! ^^

You can't hold anybody accountable without finding some liberal boogie man to attack can you? I'm surprised you didn't bring up Clinton while you were at it.

Just admit this government says "Support the troops", when in reality they screw 'em every turn of the road. From shoddy body armor, to atrocious medical care, to this shit.

truly saddening

Where did that article come from?

If it is true, thats pretty fucked up.

"If it's true"  ::)

See here (http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/Iraq.veteran.bonuses.2.592432.html)

Complete with video interview of soldier.

Supposedly the Army has since reversed this-


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/21/national/main3529961.shtml?source=mostpop_story

This disgusts me so completely. 

And as usual, SLCPUNK and fuckin crazy are name calling when they have no ground to stand on for their argument! Great contribution as always you two.

Good job California, good job.  ::)

Bush could eat a live baby on TV and you'd say the kid had it coming.

Be a man for once in your life and admit this administration treats our soldiers like shit.

Lol.

And yeah that's pretty fucking bad. :/.

No, you are wrong again.

dude, just admit it, your California comment was retarded and out of context.  Why is it so hard to say "wow, that is really fucked up the gov't isn't letting these men/women keep their full signing bonus!"

??

Because George Bush has never told a lie ;)

I think Zappa described it as "wearing brown lipstick".

Retarded and out of context? Are you serious? We're talking about how screwed up things are and California falls right into that screw-up.

There is absolutely no reason why California, one of the largest economies in the world, can not pay for it's military men and women to go to college. All 49 other states pay for their men and women to attend school. It's insane!

Why is it so hard for you or anyone else to see that?

Nope, we were talking about how the military wanted enlistment bonus' back from wounded vets. Typical strawman tactics ... just change the subject.

I.E. servicemen getting screwed. How is that changing the subject? How is that different when it comes to California screwing it's own servicemen?

OK, I'll give and engage you in your strawman bullshit for a hot minute.

Are you going to say that sending our troops off to war with improper armor, while cutting vet benefits, sub standard VA hospitals, and asking for their bonus money to be returned after sustaining serious injury while serving their country is the same as not paying for their education? Are you really serious here?

I don't think what Drew is saying is too outrageous a comparison.  After all, a lot of servicemen and women join for the benefits, such as a paid education.  I wasn't aware that California does this, though, so I have a question. 

Is this a recent change or policy?   I ask this because, if there were some who joined and then had this benefit revoked, then that is shameless.  But, if they knew that California wouldn't cover this (which is still bad, mind you), then it's difficult to claim that they were screwed over. 

And I thought the fed payed for military people to go to college after their service...is this just a Cali. Nat. Guard thing?

I've never read anything about it myself. Maybe he could provide a link?

Although, really it's what he wants, so we can stay clear of the topic at hand.

But at this point, I'd like to see if what specifically he is talking about.

Is this what you are talking about?

State Soldiers May Get Free College Tuition

California servicemen and women would be entitled to free tuition at state colleges under legislation moving through the State Capitol. Assembly Bill 767 would allow the state to waive fees at public colleges for honorably discharged members of the military and National Guard members once they exhausted all their GI bill benefits.

"It's the least that we can do," said bill author, Assemblywoman Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel. "We need to be sure that we're supporting the men and women who are protecting us."

California benefits to National Guard troops lag behind the resources offered by other states. Guard members in New York and Texas already receive free tuition at their state colleges.

California National Guard officials say the disparity in benefits is making it more difficult to recruit and retain troops in this state. They say California has the lowest number of National Guard troops per capita than any other state in the nation.

Walters' legislation would apply to Californians who are honorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces and California National Guard members on active duty or full-time federal duty.

The measure went before the Assembly Appropriations Committee today where members voted to put it on the suspense file. That means lawmakers will take it up at a later date as part of a bigger budget discussion. The bill author estimates the legislation would cost about $1 million a year.

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=27932

It's not that big of a deal. They already have the G.I. Bill @ $36,000 (with the option of upgrading it by ~$10,000), and that's federal/part of your enlistment contract.

The big deal is jerkin these guys around on armor/weapons issues, and of course dickin the soldiers on their re-enlistment bonuses.

I don't think that there are many states that give free tuition to vets, unless they have a %100 disability. I don't know of any, but ther are probably some out there.

If you remember, I started off my first post in this thread saying this "kind of reminds me." Or did you miss that? I assume you did because your to much in a hurry to start calling me names like your buddy. I never went off topic or tried to change the subject. All I did was mention how this reminded me of something else.

And yes, it reminded me of how soldiers were not benefiting as they should on other levels as well.

laughing my fucking ass off!

 :no:

I think it's brilliant that cali doesn't want to pay for education for soldiers. In other words they don't really promote people to inlist themselfs or whatever..

One could argue tho that cali should demand and pay for education for soldiers BFEORE they actually go to war. That way people would be smart enough to not go to war after all!

Maybe if we have a terrorist attack in California we don't send troops there.

So, in the end, even accommodating Drew's strawman bullshit, the comparison still doesn't hold up.

Figures.

Shaman was considerate enough to jump on the "naughty California" bandwagon, even though Drew's version is clearly not an accurate portrayal of what the truth is.

Figures.

Each state is different, of course Drew doesn't mention that. Instead he heads for the Bill O'really school of talking points, focusing on the liberal California boogie man.

Myself? I blame gay marriage.

What are you talking about? I haven't even (EDIT: deleted) ... . Maybe you are refering to me calling you out on your fallacy? Perhaps, it is because I inferred that you were a brown noser to the administration? Either/or, it is an observation that is supported by the facts of your post history. I believe one of my favorite idioms is appropriate; "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" e,g; (another one)get your nose out of Bush's butt, and/or quit with the fallacies.

So now you try to lie that you didn't refer to me as "strawman"?

See, when you and your buddy SLCPUNK start calling people names your point becomes lost cause you obviously have lost all ground to stand on. So what do you do, your turn to trying to insult people. I can stand the heat. It seems you can't by having to call people names.

Why not check where your nose is?

That wasn't a name, but merely an observational reference to your argument.

Sadly, Drew's bullshit post has taken this thread off topic...    :no:

You just can't understand it, that's all.

 :rofl:

Watch out!  I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they start saying "Hey Drew!  You're such an Ad Hominem!"

These guys and their insults?  :confused:

That's all they can do. It's pathetic!

Call people names and blame everyone else for taking threads off topic! When that's exactly their motive many times than not in other threads. Just wait, they will prove my point.

There is a difference between "going off topic" and using a fallacious argument to make a point.

You assumed they were insulting you when they were really making a comment about your post.   :-\

Yup.

Here is where I'd usually swoop in and call him stupid. But this time I won't and pretend I did.

Did you completely miss their post?



This was completely directed at me personally.  And not directed at my post.

I think that's a pretty straight shot at the childish game of calling someone a name as they so often do and then lie and say they didn't call me a name.

I think you should quit while you're behind and just admit you don't know what strawman means.

Obvisousy, some of you can't see the difference.

I'm sorry, but if the clown shoe fitz...

I post an article about Vets getting their bonuses retracted after sustaining injury while serving. You, don't condemn the act, but rather take a dishonest argument about vet tuition in California and blast that instead. You are either being purposely dishonest, or too dumb to realize the difference, either one earns you a pair of fucking CLOWN SHOEZ!

Clowns are scary.  :nervous:

Did you miss my post?

And again, I said I was reminded by this topic of the California situation. It's all in relation to what's wrong.

I'm sorry you can't see that and would earn you a pair of shoes.

Again, source your California story, and give us details. So far, in a ten second search, what I found, showed that you were full of crap. What is "going on" out there? Because from what I've found, it sounds like you are in spin mode Clarabell.

You mean give in to your game you like and have played over and over and over? No! I've been through that over and over with you, only for you to blow off my comments and accusations with their links and sources. If it's not some left wing vomit website or media outlet you always call bullshit and blow it off.

If I had just an ounce of belief that you would not blow off a source or link cause you hate the site or media outlet so much, than maybe I would go ahead and post a link. But you see, I've run tired of proving my points only for you to just attack the site and source.

You know spin very well!

(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w273/timothywilcox/StrawMan.jpg)

What game? That I'd like to see your source for the California story?  ::)

Maybe if you actually sourced something that wasn't from a right wing website, I'd be inclined to give it a shot.

I get my news from mainstream media, NIE reports, White House reports, Lancet Studies and so on. I know you'd like to wish I pulled all my stuff from Michael Moore's website, but I don't. Guys like you and Flagg always put of the right wing media kookburger stuff, nobody else.

I think it's fair to guess that there is not conspiracy in California against Vets, just some liberal boogie man bullshit you read on a some crap website, or saw on Fox.

Drew:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I know I'm probably killing the party here, but.....

They weren't calling you a strawman.  They were not telling you to burn.

They were commenting that the point you were making was a "strawman argument".

In other words, you were setting up the argument simply to have something to "burn down".  It had little to no relationship to the original point of discussion.  Essentially, you were engaging in a popular logical fallacy in the discussion/argument of the original article.

Some of these stories are incredible - disgusting how this country treats those who put their lives in harms way to defend it.

worth reading:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080120/ap_on_re_us/homeless_on_the_homefront

I have a college buddy who's just recently back from his second tour in Iraq.  He suggests we should support the troops by voting for a Democrat or Ron Paul.

so i take it he wasn't a fan of the surge?

I think he was sent, pre-surge for "one year."  Turned out to be considerably longer.

Didn't you hear? The surge was a success, the economy is great, and Republicans are creating a bill to legitimize "wide stance" as we speak.