"Support The Troops"

[Tahuti]

And the expansions of entitlements proposed in the OP are not parasitical?

I don't think soldiers are respected even enough compared to figures that such 'heroes' like Donald Trump.

 

[JollyRoger]

I have had a couple of clients that were veterans who tended to sabotage their own cause by overplaying the veteran card. It has its place for tactical advantage in a legal dispute, but once you have played it, it has diminishing to negative value going forward.

 

[Leonel]

I'd have to meet the troop before I support them. If they're nice people, I'll support them even if they accidentally bomb their own side. "Hey I know the guy, he was having a bad day."

 

[.Shane.]

Last time I checked, it was a volunteer gig.

Amen to that.

Improve veteran's lives?

1. Have less wars.
2. Have a smaller armed force.
3. Institute a draft.
4. Properly fund their programs.

The end

 

[.Shane.]

1) The 5 and 10 point veteran's preference system for government jobs would apply to the private sector as well.

2) If a veteran applies for a job, the organization or company must at least give them an interview. This combined with 1) would maximize the chances of veterans finding a job and reducing veteran unemployment. Basically, I want it so veterans have the first crack at any job that becomes available. I don't think that is too much to ask nor is it unfair.

3) Retention of Tricare for all veterans, not just retirees. This would alleviate the burden of worrying about healthcare for veterans, and would actually save employers money as well because the veteran wouldn't have to get their healthcare through the employer.

4) Guaranteed approval of home and small business loans for veterans. The VA has a home loan program now, but all it does is make it easier to get a home loan, not guaranteeing approval.

5) The GI Bill should be expanded to cover the soldier's/veteran's spouse and children as well. Right now, the Post-9/11 GI Bill can be transferred to dependents after having a certain number of years in service, but I think the GI Bill should cover the college education of the soldier/veteran AND spouses and children. Also, I would like to see the GI Bill cover graduate school as well, not just undergrad.

There are more things I would like to see in the way of veteran's benefits, but I don't want to make this too long.

1, 2, and 4 = no way, no how, no way.

3, I'm not sure what "Tricare" is, but if this is the VA hospital system or something similar we need to dramatically increase the funding.

5, I have to think about more.

 

[GoodGame]

1) The 5 and 10 point veteran's preference system for government jobs would apply to the private sector as well.

If you think about that more, that is basically a veiled state-command economy, weak-sauce style. There are companies that give mild favoritism to veterans though. It is not to hard to find who those are through networking through the military / veterans community. For instance, I attended a job fair this year that had about 30 companies present (mostly private) that were looking to hire veterans.

In the mid-west at least, as an applicant I see some larger companies practically demanding veteran information (e.g. campaign status, or if you fit the VRA program that the Fed does), along with the EEO information; in some cases there is a Federal program for which the company gives some incentive for hiring veterans (and also for people on food stamp assistance). I forget the name of the program, but I know Home Depot is one company that participates in it.

A recently-separated, or soon-to-be-separated veteran, with any sort of campaign status would be foolish to not try to network hard to Federal employment, straight out of the military. That is the most stable employment future that takes into consideration prior service. If I could do it again, I would not even try to go back to school my first year out of service, and just jump straight into civilian Federal service, in any region of the country.

2) If a veteran applies for a job, the organization or company must at least give them an interview. This combined with 1) would maximize the chances of veterans finding a job and reducing veteran unemployment. Basically, I want it so veterans have the first crack at any job that becomes available. I don't think that is too much to ask nor is it unfair.

Forcing companies to give interviews seems questionable to me. No company that posts job listings is really required to interview, as far as I know. Often, I suspect they are just fishing for resumes or contact information, or even just using submissions to evaluate their current employees against.

As an unemployed vet, I have developed a pretty thick skin about the job search process. The best advice is dress well, don't go on tangents in an interview, don't come across as hostile to former employers, and take the time to write short concise resumes that target the job descriptions. And never take any part of the process too seriously nor too personally.

I never take a robo-rejection letter for a job application seriously. In fact I think that is what they should tell a veteran who is suddenly going from many years of stable government employment to the free market, which is to take a lot rejection with a grain of salt. The military teaches a lot about loyalty courage responsibility, etc... but the free market is basically just regulated chaos that you just sink or swim in.

Also, many good states have veteran assistance programs to help veterans learn to target the resumes and job searches better.

But one thing I would love to get help with from the government is how to determine if I was being discriminated for age, or former military status, and how to sue about it. That would make me a happy , sue-happy , veteran. personally I view a lot of that EOE or veteran status information is a reward that the company has to earn from me, by giving me an interview, although if they actually read my resume, they should be able to figure most of it out. So if the company really needs that info, and I don't give it, I figure they have to grant me at least a phone interview to find out what I am for their record book.

3) Retention of Tricare for all veterans, not just retirees. This would alleviate the burden of worrying about healthcare for veterans, and would actually save employers money as well because the veteran wouldn't have to get their healthcare through the employer.

This was basically present when I got out, but it was also pretty expensive. Practically, I don't think it's a great idea, because of geographical considerations. If they had the kind of roaming Tricare that would be accepted at most major hospitals in all parts of the country so long commutes to care weren't needed, then I would agree.

It might be better service to just ask for an annual healthcare subsidy or tax credit for all veterans, as needed. E.g the first $5000 of the first $10,000 / year of health bills for any veteran might be written off, regardless of income level, after say the first $5k of income.

Personally I wouldn't confuse wanting to give veteran's healthcare assistance with wanting to give all veterans a form of Tricare.

I think the VA needs to fix VA care for retirees first though. Healthcare is really expensive, so I think this is your least practical idea, given the US economy and Federal spending.

@.shane, Tricare is basically the hospital system that the DOD runs for active service military, and is usually geographically located close to urban areas and military bases. The idea is to have top quality healthcare for active military and their dependents. It is also to some extent an insurance program to allow for some procedures on the regular free market (like say your family has an emergency while on vacation far from the usualy military locations).

4) Guaranteed approval of home and small business loans for veterans. The VA has a home loan program now, but all it does is make it easier to get a home loan, not guaranteeing approval.

GREAT IDEA

Additionally I know of one community college that basically give entrepreneurs free appraisals and guidance of their small business ideas (as a way to foster economic growth in the community), and I would expand the program to do so. Basically financial guys intern to give critiques and ideas to entrepreneurs, etc... I could see that as win-win because you could have recent graduates looking for work who would intern (perhaps under Federal grant) to share expertise with veterans looking to become entrepreneurs.

5) The GI Bill should be expanded to cover the soldier's/veteran's spouse and children as well. Right now, the Post-9/11 GI Bill can be transferred to dependents after having a certain number of years in service, but I think the GI Bill should cover the college education of the soldier/veteran AND spouses and children. Also, I would like to see the GI Bill cover graduate school as well, not just undergrad.

Hmm that is really ambitious. I guess I could agree if it was done on installments. Like maybe your first four to six years of service gives one GI bill that can be transferred one time, but maybe a re-enlistment option to go six to eight years additionally (to up to 14 years service) gives a second installment of GI bill that has no restrictions (e.g. could be transferred in the way that you want, or even be used while in a doctoral program).

Didn't many investment bankers risk their lives by working at the World Trade Center, especially after 1993?

To some extent, everyone risks their life every day doing anything, and doesn't necessarily ask for any harm to befall them. But not everyone heeds the call of public service.

Amen to that.

Improve veteran's lives?

1. Have less wars.
2. Have a smaller armed force.
3. Institute a draft.
4. Properly fund their programs.

The end

The US government determined long ago that drafts are suitable for emergencies, and don't generally improve the services (by the end of the Vietnam conflict, the government decided that the draft system was actually detrimental). Less wars would be great, but sometimes they are unavoidable. Smaller forces augmented with better technology is a continuous improvement goal of militaries, but asymmetric warfare happens, and technology is never a panacea---therefore cutting force size doesn't always work either. It'd be great if there were perfect diplomacy and no jingoism in the world which pre-empted wars, but the cultures of the world seem to stumble with that from time to time.

 

[Commodore]

Welcome to the rest of the country. Stop agitating just for your particular special interest and get in on the big fight.

Because the difference between what veterans are fighting for and what the rest of the people are fighting for is that these are benefits that were promised to us in exchange for our service. Now the government is trying to say they don't have to live up to their end of the bargain. And before you bring up the stuff I wrote in my OP, those things were just my "ideal world" type stuff, not what I'm actually fighting for. What I am actually fighting for, is the retention of the benefits we currently have and the reinstatement of the ones they have taken away.

The "big fight" as you call it is not fighting to keep what was contractually guaranteed to them, they are fighting for additional benefits. Now while I am sympathetic to that cause, I choose to stand only for veterans for two big reasons: 1) It is obviously a cause that is more personal to me, as it affects myself and some very close friends. 2) Those who typically advocate for the "big fight" usually also advocate for the reduction in veterans' benefits, so I sort of see them as the opposition even though I sympathize with their cause.

As an aside: Something we were always told in the Army was when the day came that each one of us would leave military service we should keep in touch with each other because we would be all we had. That no one outside of the military, not even our families, would ever understand or truly care about what we did and the toll it takes on us. I always thought that was just some military indoctrination crap to scare people into reenlisting to keep numbers up so I never bought into it. Ever since I separated from the Army, I have found that every word of that was true and I am glad I have kept in touch with the guys from my unit. I trust them more than I trust my own wife and it is the same for them. And the sentiment towards veterans displayed here by a good number of posters serves as further confirmation of what we were told.

Veterans who don't even know each other will bend over backwards to help each other out. The reason I am in the position I am in now, is because the business is owned by veterans. My boss that hired me is a veteran and he told me he gave me this management position specifically because I am a veteran. Of course some of the guys I manage resent me because they thought one of them would get the promotion, but none of them were veterans. The point of this story is that my boss had no idea who I was, all he had was my resume, but he took a chance on me because of that loyalty veterans have for each other. Now that I have some input in the hiring process, I am going to start slowly replacing the people I manage with veterans. The same goes for when I get my business off the ground, only veterans will be considered for employment at my business.

 

[JollyRoger]

Azale was referring to the chipping away of promised benefits . . . much a feature of the private sector and the big fight.

I am with you on promises being honored . . . just not with you on the scope of your expanded benefits in the OP.

 

[Commodore]

Azale was referring to the chipping away of promised benefits . . . much a feature of the private sector and the big fight.

I am with you on promises being honored . . . just not with you on the scope of your expanded benefits in the OP.

Well that was more of an "if I ruled the world" type scenario, rather than what I think veterans can realistically fight for.

What I would really like to see is some politicians that are willing to stand up to their constituents and explain why veterans get the benefits we get and why those benefits should be non-negotiable when we start talking about things that need to be cut from the budget.

 

[Bootstoots]

Soldiers actually risk life and limb and it would be fair if they got much more respect than say, investment bankers.

I question this sort of thinking on the grounds that serving in the US military in modern times, although dangerous, isn't more dangerous than a variety of other jobs people take on. Lumberjacks, fishermen, truckers, farmers, pilots, and construction workers all have very high on-the-job fatality rates, and they all provide vital services. Should they be accorded the same level of respect as soldiers, and if not, why not?

I am all in favor of giving our veterans getting the level of care (including psychiatric) they need from the VA, being given expanded GI bills, some employment help (stopping short of requiring interviews or forcing employers to preference them), and a variety of other benefits. It's the least the government could do to help out the people they send to fight nonsense wars and support that apparatus. But I don't know why the level of respect for veterans in general should be extraordinarily high relative to other risky jobs.

 

[Old Hippy]

I question this sort of thinking on the grounds that serving in the US military in modern times, although dangerous, isn't more dangerous than a variety of other jobs people take on. Lumberjacks, fishermen, truckers, farmers, pilots, and construction workers all have very high on-the-job fatality rates, and they all provide vital services. Should they be accorded the same level of respect as soldiers, and if not, why not?

an interesting point, Australia's worst day in Vietnam, the battle of Long Tan in 1966 saw 18 killed and 24 wounded, and is routinely remembered with appropriate speeches and memorials, a sort of Rorks Drift, yet just a few years later in 1970 34 construction workers were killed in the heart of Melbourne in one day, most people here know nothing about it, and see last years street riots/protests by my Union/police as obsolete old fashion thuggery, yet the government was trying to change safety laws and practices

 

[Commodore]

I question this sort of thinking on the grounds that serving in the US military in modern times, although dangerous, isn't more dangerous than a variety of other jobs people take on. Lumberjacks, fishermen, truckers, farmers, pilots, and construction workers all have very high on-the-job fatality rates, and they all provide vital services. Should they be accorded the same level of respect as soldiers, and if not, why not?

I have to disagree with this. Sure we aren't being butchered hundreds or thousands of men at a time like in the wars of the past, but the battlefield is still much more dangerous and stressful than any other workplace environment. The burden a soldier accepts is also far greater than that accepted by any other profession. When you take the oath, you are saying that you are willing to give your life as well as take the lives of others in defense of your country, fellow citizens, and government. No other profession has to make that kind of commitment to their employer (well, other than mercenaries). It really does take a different kind of person to voluntarily make that commitment, and I feel that kind of person is worthy of just a little more respect than others.

 

[Bootstoots]

I have to disagree with this. Sure we aren't being butchered hundreds or thousands of men at a time like in the wars of the past, but the battlefield is still much more dangerous and stressful than any other workplace environment. The burden a soldier accepts is also far greater than that accepted by any other profession. When you take the oath, you are saying that you are willing to give your life as well as take the lives of others in defense of your country, fellow citizens, and government. No other profession has to make that kind of commitment to their employer (well, other than mercenaries). It really does take a different kind of person to voluntarily make that commitment, and I feel that kind of person is worthy of just a little more respect than others.

I can agree with having a high level of respect for people who have experienced battlefield conditions, and treating them with the compassion that is due anyone who has had to endure such a traumatic experience. The VA's terrible handling of PTSD and other psychiatric conditions related to battlefield horror and reintegrating into society makes it that much more important.

As for whether we should highly respect (versus other jobs) the sort of person who takes an oath to kill and/or die for the citizens and government of the US, I'm not as sure. I suspect many recruits sign up primarily because they don't know what else to do with their lives and appreciate the job security and structure supplied by the military. Our society contains enough people living on the economic margins that taking this sort of oath is not necessarily a bad idea for them, even from a selfish perspective. I can imagine a number of other reasons a person might take that oath as well that don't necessarily have to do with anything noble. Certainly a large proportion do have higher ideals in mind as well.

Overall, I wish we as a society would give a higher level of respect to everyone with difficult and necessary working-class jobs, ranging from enlisted personnel in the military to lumberjacks, fishermen, construction workers, et al. Sometimes I'm overwhelmed by the number of people who have to be willing to give their lives for all the aspects of running a modern society.

 

[CavLancer]

You can't beat em Commodore and there is no point in joining them. Consider the now free ex Warsaw Pact nations. These are some of the most pro NATO, pro military nations in the alliance simply because they have suffered under totalitarian communism. Give these folks you debate a dose of that for a few years and troops will get more appreciation from them.

"Better red than dead!" Better dead than red. Its a choice. "Liberty or death!" Been around for a long time, sacrifice for the greater good, for freedom. Some are not willing to pay the price, in oh so many ways. Some are not even willing to make the small sacrifice of supporting the troops. That's what freedom is all about, yes? The freedom to be morons. Its worth fighting for. Freedom of speech. I would to this day lay down my life to prevent this freedom from dying under the communist boot. Its why I get along with communists. The freedom to ***** about us not being Soviets is worth defending.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I have to disagree with this. Sure we aren't being butchered hundreds or thousands of men at a time like in the wars of the past, but the battlefield is still much more dangerous and stressful than any other workplace environment. The burden a soldier accepts is also far greater than that accepted by any other profession. When you take the oath, you are saying that you are willing to give your life as well as take the lives of others in defense of your country, fellow citizens, and government. No other profession has to make that kind of commitment to their employer (well, other than mercenaries). It really does take a different kind of person to voluntarily make that commitment, and I feel that kind of person is worthy of just a little more respect than others.

How many people in the military are combat soldiers? And how many of those are killed in any recent engagements?

The odds of dying due to combat in the military in recent history is very small. There are far more dangerous professions.

You could make the very same argument about cops, only they aren't defending their country. They are defending the lives and even the property of others.

Besides, how many soldiers actually die defending the US instead of losing their lives in a foreign country for political reasons? I can't think of a single one in recent history.

 

[Old Hippy]

You can't beat em Commodore and there is no point in joining them. Consider the now free ex Warsaw Pact nations. These are some of the most pro NATO, pro military nations in the alliance simply because they have suffered under totalitarian communism. Give these folks you debate a dose of that for a few years and troops will get more appreciation from them.

"Better red than dead!" Better dead than red. Its a choice. "Liberty or death!" Been around for a long time, sacrifice for the greater good, for freedom. Some are not willing to pay the price, in oh so many ways. Some are not even willing to make the small sacrifice of supporting the troops. That's what freedom is all about, yes? The freedom to be morons. Its worth fighting for. Freedom of speech. I would to this day lay down my life to prevent this freedom from dying under the communist boot. Its why I get along with communists. The freedom to ***** about us not being Soviets is worth defending.

did I miss out on a war recently, the last anticommunist one I remember is Vietnam, and I did my upmost to support the troops then, by protesting in the streets to get them back home

 

[Commodore]

How many people in the military are combat soldiers? And how many of those are killed in any recent engagements?

The odds of dying due to combat in the military in recent history is very small. There are far more dangerous professions.

It's about more than the number that get killed Forma. You're looking at it with too narrow of a scope. There is no other profession that has the same risk for permanent injury as the military. Even during peace time, most soldiers leave the military with some sort of physical or mental disability. There is not a single other profession that poses the level of risk for some sort of permanent damage as the military.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It sounds like your issue should be with an uncaring government that supposedly mutilates or incapacitates nearly every single person who volunteers. That is if you can show what you claim is actually true.

Occupation Deaths per 100,000
Fishers and fishing workers 118.4
Logging workers 92.9
Aircraft pilots 66.9
U.S. Military 59.3
Structural iron and steel workers 55.6

 

[Commodore]

It sounds like your issue should be with an uncaring government that supposedly mutilates or incapacitates nearly every single person who volunteers. That is if you can show what you claim is actually true.

Again, you are looking at it with too narrow of a scope. You are only focusing on the danger of death and not the overall danger. Plus I think the first commenter in the link you provided makes a very good point:

I don’t think it’s a math issue. I think it’s job issue. There are MANY non-combative jobs that are diluting your numbers. I think for more accurate account you would have to make some type of distinction. Notice it says Aircraft pilots and not EVERYONE who works in the airplane or airline industry, because that would dilute the numbers.

So at the very least you’d have to split up military jobs somehow. That may be why they are not included as it could get complicated and then the endless arguments as to what is what. My 2 cents.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I doubt that even if you restrict it to combat soldiers that you could show their risk of injury is any greater than a number of civilian jobs, such as commercial fishing and logging.

Many of those injuries could also likely be reduced. The number of seamen being injured and killed soared during the 70s during a period of no wars, so they implemented a massive restructuring to increase safety. Now it is much safer.