Bush wants to give a $100,000 'Gratuity' to family's of the dead?

[truthpusher]

... My thought was, Mr. Bush, why stop there?

Here is an 'A La Carte Gratuity' Menu for those soldiers who didn't receive enough damage to take advantage of The new Bush bonanza:



A La Carte Menu of Gratuity

Life
100,000


Arm
20,000 ea.


Leg
15,000 ea.


Hand (Primary use)
10,000 ea.


Hand (Secondary Use)
7,500 ea.


Finger (Index or Thumb Primary Hand)
1,500 ea.


Finger (All others)
750 ea.


Foot
5,000 ea.


Toe
250 ea.


Eye
12,500 ea.


Burns (Scaring)
150 per sq. inch


Brain
2,500 per cubic inch


Vital Organ
15,000 ea.


Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
2 free movie passes



*Total of A La Carte items can not exceed 100,000 (Life total Gratuity)




(please note that this little theater of irony, is with all due respect to injured or dead soldiers and their family's, who have and will give the greatest sacrifice)

[bobbobbins]

1. how much for a tooth?

[truthpusher]

2. Bush has knocked everybody's teeth out....

...including ours, so, there is not enough money to cover teeth...sorry.

[indepat]

3. What about a gratuity equivalent to the deceased's realistic life-time

earnings potential were he/she to have lived out his/her life expectancy rather than dying as a teenager or while twenty-something. Should this not be factored in as part of the true cost of military deaths?

[truthpusher]

6. They can't afford a couple million a piece. n/t

[beyurslf]

4. I actually was shocked to find out it is only 12,000 right now. I think

this is a great idea--even if it did come form Bush. I hope they make it retroactive to all who have been killed in the Iraq war. 12,000 barely pays for the funeral costs.

[spunky]

17. Last I read about the proposal it would be retroactive

and I think its good. I too was appalled at the low amount paid to the families of those who paid the ultimate price for this war. At least to those with husbands/wives and children. The surviving spouse should at least have time to grieve before he/she has to figure out how to support a family alone.

[hfojvt]

23. I have seen it quoted as $21,000 to $100,000

If a grunt dies, their spouse gets $21,000 if a colonel dies, their spouse gets $100,000.
In other words, the life of a rich person is going to be worth more than the life of a poor person.
Bush loves to use public money to increase inequality.

[DistantWind88]

30. Where did you see that?

These kinds of things do not depend upon rank.

[hfojvt]

31. ABC news

they do not depend on rank now, but in the Bush proposal, they will, as I understand it. With Bush, it is always important to read the fine print.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. This is the administration's latest version of buying support for the war.

It is sad but true. They are in a corner, and are being forced to finally put their, er, OUR money where their mouth is. They are now supporting our troops the way they should have right from the beginning, but only because it is politically expedient for them to do it now.
Now they can point to these benefits and say "Look at what we are doing for the troops!!"
They are such arrogant hypocrites. It nauseates me how they always manage to manipulate the situation so that when you point out what they are doing, it makes you look like the bad guy.

[maxsolomon]

7. since its my "grandkids" footing the bill for this deficit...

and i have no kids, lets double it.

[ComerPerro]

8. Its really pissing me off that he is pushing this now

The Democrats brought this up and tried to introduce it a while ago.

Now Bush will discuss this, it will get passed, and everyone will talk about how compassionate Bush is, how great it is that he is doing this, and what a great leader and man of vision he is.

He was originally against this, he was originally against imposing our will on other nations with humanitarian exercises, he was against the Dept. of Homeland security, and he was against investigating 9/11.

[oldtime dfl_er]

9. hush money

He doesn't like families of the dead coming out against his war.

www.cafepress.com/showtheworld

[quiet.american]

10. Worth more dead than alive --

-- is the message he's sending to our troops!

[truthpusher]

11. True n/t

[spunky]

18. Non its not. Its providing for the survivors who have lost

the income of a spouse/parent to help provide for them. Those that survive uninjured can continue to provide for their families.

[quiet.american]

19. There's a larger point you're missing.

I'm former military and am aware of what a death benefit is. The point is, Shrub's increasing the death benefit to $100,000 accomplishes at least two things:

It may forestall a draft for a slightly longer period of time, as more of those in desperate financial circumstances may sign on with the thought that at least if they don't make it, their families will still benefit.

It says to those servicemen and women who are either physically and/or mentally injured and receiving very little or no medical care, or being billed for their hospital meals while recuperating in military hospitals, or just literally scrambling from day to day just to survive, while their families back home slowly spiral downwards financially, that they're better off dead -- at least they're loved ones would have the hundred thou.

Meanwhile, even though Shrub raised over forty million for his Installation Day activities, according to the mother of one of the servicemen who was ordered to go to part of the ceremonies to listen to Shrub "honor the troops," they were reduced to going to a fast-food restaurant after the ball because no one set aside a dollar of the $40 million to offer them a meal. Further, he had to pay for his own accommodations on a military base, for something he was ordered to go to!

The message here is that Shrub needs to take better care of our troops while they're ALIVE! It does not have to be either/or. Billions of dollars have been taken out of our treasury for Shrub's war. There's enough to treat the troops well while they're living and to provide security for their loved ones when they've made the ultimate sacrifice -- that is if you can get Halliburton's snout out of the trough for a minute.

[spunky]

20. I didn't intend to imply that injured soldiers

should recieve nothing. Obviously if a physical or mental injury puts a soldier in a position that they can no longer hold a job and support their family, they ought to be provided for. They got the injury in our name and we have an obligation to repay thier services regardless of the cost. But I think that should be a separate issue and should not detract from changing death benefits. $12,000 is far to low a price to put on a human life.

[David__77]

12. If they do attack Iran, that could get very pricey.

It's a valuable idea though. But I think it should be $1,000,000, plus lifetime health care for spouses/partners and dependents and college for children up to the doctoral level. Perhaps that would discourage criminal wars of aggression.

Edited: I wrote "Iraq" instead of Iran.

[Catbird]

13. What is being taken away?

My guess is that there is something being taken away in terms of benefits to surviving spouses and children, but I haven't figured out what it is yet. Over the past 20 years the medical benefits to family have been cut and made less convenient. What now?

I can't help but be reminded of the reports of payments to families of suicide bombers.

[Zebulon]

14. Irony is right

How is this different than Saddam giving $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?

[MissB]

15. A recent LTTE suggested gas cards as payment

You'd get a certain amount for loss of a limb. Much more for total disability.

If you died, your family would get a lifetime gas card, free.

[AirAmFan]

27. How appropriate for casualties of wars for oil!

</sarcasm>

[wadestock]

16. This is only a temporary business adjustment

Since W and the rest simply look at these poor kids as a means to an end...this is all simply reacting to media pressure...no real sense that they want more for the troops.

The business equation to attract new enlistees is a carefully crafted equation that they worked on all through the 80s. It represents MINIMUM benefits to yield a particular strength army.

The irony of this is....they may actually find that it attracts more poor to join the volunteer army...and the poor in this country will no doubt be steadily on the increase as wages go down and jobs are lost.

I'm sure they've looked as this from the business perspective that it might actually add an extra incentive to join.....so they can perhaps reduce pay or other benefits to even the deal in the future.

[paineinthearse]

21. WH press faux pas - see related thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1553759

[Vinca]

22. Did he actually say "gratuity??"

You give a gratuity to the teenage girl who brings you the stack at IHOP, not to the family of a dead soldier. That's the most demeaning thing I've ever heard. Proof positive he considers the troops "fodder."

[truthpusher]

24. He actually said 'Death Gratuity'.....

...Do you think $100,000 is equal to 18% of a life? I guess it all depends on the service.

[Vinca]

25. Or the life.

I wouldn't leave a quarter for Dubya.

[liveoaktx]

26. Yeah, Gratuity- -----" TIP"

[queenjane]

28. They can't meet their recruitment quotas

so they're upping the ante: if you're killed, at least your family will have some cash.

All the while slicing benefits for maimed vets. Charming.

God forbid anyone vote against this. Can you see the attack ads during the next election cycle?

I mean no disrespect. We owe our military people so very much, and I was horrified at how little they currently receive. But I find the timing suspect, and politically expedient.

This will be the centerpiece of the "State of Contusion" address tonight, which I won't be watching, as I'm out of bourbon and probably couldn't drink enough anyway to make me sit through it.

[paineinthearse]

29. What is the source document for the usage "gratuity"? n/t