Why is the Army losing so many talented midlevel officers?
- Thread starter FriendlyFire
- Start date
You earn welfare by meeting certain requirements. Same thing here. And there's still the issue of medicare, which is essentially a government-sponsored retirement plan for everyone. And besides, it's by far the largest retirement package that I have ever seen for people that could quite frankly get much less. Look at military legal aid jobs, such as paralegals, for example - unnecessary bureaucracy. Let military peeps get legal aid for themselves.
Ecofarm
Deity
Oh, so now our soldiers are OVERPAID... after months of complaining about how contractors are paid so much more than the average Joe... Make up your mind. Are they underpaid or overpaid?
As far as "meeting certain requirements" I think even you know that is full of crap. To meet the requirements to utilize a veterens hospital, you must serve your country (during wartime if you want to use it after discharge pre-retirement).
I would call going to war a very different thing than being unable to work.
It is not anywhere near the same thing. EVERYTHING is accomplished by "meeting certain requirements"... that doesn't make everything the same. There are certain requirements to be met to get into the olympics, so I guess - to you - going to the olympics and being on welfare are the same thing. Is being on welfare the same thing as winning the Noble Prize? Met requirements! What about scholarships... are those welfare... "met the requirements!". You act as if welfare is an accomplishment:
Wow! You met the requirements! You're on welfare! Gratz! Good job and thanks, we are all in debt to you!
What a joke. Welfare = meeting requirements = everything else. Please tell me you were joking.
As far as "meeting certain requirements" I think even you know that is full of crap. To meet the requirements to utilize a veterens hospital, you must serve your country (during wartime if you want to use it after discharge pre-retirement).
I would call going to war a very different thing than being unable to work.
It is not anywhere near the same thing. EVERYTHING is accomplished by "meeting certain requirements"... that doesn't make everything the same. There are certain requirements to be met to get into the olympics, so I guess - to you - going to the olympics and being on welfare are the same thing. Is being on welfare the same thing as winning the Noble Prize? Met requirements! What about scholarships... are those welfare... "met the requirements!". You act as if welfare is an accomplishment:
Wow! You met the requirements! You're on welfare! Gratz! Good job and thanks, we are all in debt to you!
What a joke. Welfare = meeting requirements = everything else. Please tell me you were joking.
Well, if someone gets discharged from the military, that's being unable to work; dischargement would specifically be welfare, and would be "unable to work". hell, it's in the definition of welfare, helping people who are less fortunate. Besides, there are concepts of checks against welfare fraud, specifically because of the welfare objections of the "welfare mom" to begin with; that doesn't change the fact that it's not something that the government should be doing in th first place. That includes caring for wounded soldiers; let them get privatized health care like the rest of us. And quite frankly, that isn't worth my tax dollars, to spend money for the welfare of soldiers. Let the market decide.
Again, I'm not talking about welfare mothers. They're one small subset. I'm talking about the whole anti-big govt. rhetoric that so many espouse when we talk about Social Security or universal health care or any number or other programs that are reasonable for people who need them. Or when they bellyache about govt. "overregulation" when we talk about laws that mandate retirement packages, etc.... Do as I say not as I do, I suppose.
You're right, its an extremely generous package. In some ways probably excessive. But, I'd agree that they've earned it. Again, I'm not begrudging them, not at all. More I think that many other Americans deserve similar respect and treatment in the workplace and that is my point. That when we talk about universal health care or, say, a program to help subsidize day care for working mothers then these same people who suck so hard on that teet will cry "overregulation" or "creeping socialism" or "big government" while they live in taxpayer-funded housing, shop in tax-free stores, etc...
I guess we don't mind "big government" when it works in our interest, do we?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Bill, you have been drinking Jollyrogers coolaid lately I see. You couldnt be more ignorant in this comment and frankly, its very callous and unthinking of you to make it.
Military personnel already earn salarys below their civilian equivalents. Our raises are most often significantly lower than the estimated increase in the cost of living.
Apparently you have no idea of the level of need soldiers and families have of legal services, and you are truly clueless as to how much it would cost to have those needs fullfilled by the local economy as opposed to having the military do it 'in house'.
Throw in the fact that military spouse often have to act upon these matters alone while their spouse is deployed or away also magnifies the problem. The military attorneys and paralegals who help provide legal assistance services to soldiers and their families know first hand the types of problems those people face. We are best equipped and trained to meet that need and are by far the cheapest alternative for soldiers to get adequate legal assistance.
I respectfully suggest you stick to things you have a modicum of knowledge in. Comments such as you make here are going to make you look very foolish, very fast.
Ecofarm
Deity
Wrong.
So wrong.
Soldiers EARN the right to utilize a veteran's hospital, by either serving 20+ years in the military, or serving during wartime. It has nothing to do with being able to work. It is an EARNED privlege. EARNED. Get it? You don't earn welfare.
As far as being injured and cared for, your argument is even more rediculas. A soldier that gets injured and is allowed to utilize a verterns hospital is getting the benefits afforded by his EMPLOYER. Just like if you get hurt at a private job, you get medical care according to their health plan. Getting medical benefits FROM A JOB is not the same thing as getting benefits for nothing.
Are you suggesting that the market decide the price of healthcare for soldiers? I'm sure you see how stupid this is. Who would insure, for health or life, a front line soldier?
So you think soldiers should be uninsured? Nice attitude.
The military is not a democracy or a capitalist system of achievement. Why? Because totalitarianism and socialism/communism are great for waging war. It's about the only thing those systems are good for.
Just because we need such archaic systems for the military does not mean we want such archaic systems for the general public. It's not a "one rule for everyone" world, and I have no delusions of the totalitarian qualities of the military or the socialist qualities, but it doesn't mean that I find those things appropriate in the civilian world.
Just because I believe in capitalism and democracy does not mean I think those systems are appropriate for a military.
But all this just obfuscates your preposterous argument... That things EARNED are the same as welfare.
Each dollar spent in an unnecessary job which helps support our large, inefficient bureaucracy that we call our government, that could easily be substituted with the private market - the convenience of which can be easily be done via supply and demand - is a dollar less in my precious income that I could use to invest in the economy.
Makes no sense to make the distinction purely for the military. After all, the free market solves everything. We shouldn't need the military to begin with - it could easily be replaced with private security firms, as they are just as good at protecting private property, and that's the only purpose of the military.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Bill I think you mean pension / retirement funds as opposed to welfare ?
Welfare = unemployment
Pension = money you get taxed from the government and repayed.
EDIT: Social Security <---- thats what i meant !!!!
Welfare = unemployment
Pension = money you get taxed from the government and repayed.
EDIT: Social Security <---- thats what i meant !!!!
Ecofarm
Deity
Bill, your just being beligerant.
I believe in democracy, capitalism and a small government, but I am not so daft as to suggest a private military force.
In fact, I think the military should be the ONLY government responsibility. I would privitize everything else.
Again: Are scholarships the same thing as welfare? Is "meeting the requirements" for a job and taking it the same thing as welfare? After all, you had to meet requirements!
Is everything for which one must "meet requirements" the same thing as welfare? Well, anyway, that's what you propose. Good luck defending the proposal.
I believe in democracy, capitalism and a small government, but I am not so daft as to suggest a private military force.
In fact, I think the military should be the ONLY government responsibility. I would privitize everything else.
Again: Are scholarships the same thing as welfare? Is "meeting the requirements" for a job and taking it the same thing as welfare? After all, you had to meet requirements!
Is everything for which one must "meet requirements" the same thing as welfare? Well, anyway, that's what you propose. Good luck defending the proposal.
@MB and Eco, don't confuse me with Bill. That said, I'd welcome a reply by either of you to my comments, but I fear that, as often happens, we'll see it go down the path of the more extreme discussion path.
Welfare is a very broad term.
You cannot have a small government without a small military. The US does not have a small military, nor do you seem to have any desire to decrease it.
Scholorships are welfare, and are again something the government shouldn't give out. It's welfare because it's financial aid given to people who cannot support themselves, that is, their university funding.
Interesting point. Let me ask you this, as a total sub-topic/tangent...
One of the things that really troubles me about the "modern" army as designed by Cheney/Rumsfield is the emergence of, essentially, and a reliance on mercenaries. Blackwater, etc...
I really feel that reliance on mercenaries by a democratic govt is very dangerous and foolish.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Bill, you see thats where you are wrong. My job is not an 'unneccesary' job. Not in the very least. I also disagree that it could be easily substituted in the private market. Again, you make no allowance for the special needs of the military community vesus the cost involved in providing for those needs.
Bottom line, you would PUT MORE PRESSURE ON SOLDIERS WHO ALREADY FACE A HUGE AMOUNT OF IT DUE TO THE WAR.
Are you so blind in your rhetoric and demogogery than you cant for one instant see something that should be so obviously in your face??? We should be making things EASIER for soldiers via MORE SUPPORT, not making it HARDER for them.
And btw, Bill...lets be honest. Your 21 and a student and most likely still living off mommy and daddys gratis. Whining about your 'precious income' is about the most absurd and disengenuous thing that could friggin come out of that hole under your nose. I have worked a hard career and I have more time in the toilet than you do in earning an income. Cry me a friggin river.
Oh..and FF has it right. My retirement isnt welfare....I still have to pay tax on it. Its more accurately described as a pension plan. And our retiree services arent free either. Our medical is covered by a low cost type of medical insurance of which we have to copay on. The only difference is that the underwriter is the government as opposed to a private insurance corp.
Ecofarm
Deity
No. Social Security is not welfare. It is money earned and repaid (for how long, who knows).
Welfare is not a broad term in this context. It means one thing: welfare.
And anything EARNED is not welfare.
Ever heard of a dictator?That's right. But I would like to make our government smaller in alot of other areas. You do know that governments do things besides keep a standing military, right? For example: no more IRS.
What if the scholarship is provided by the institution itself (like in the case of a military hospital providing for its own employees). If a school, itself, gives a scholarship - is that welfare?
Besides, many people who get scholarships could afford to pay for it themselves, but they EARNED the scholarship, so they don't have to.
I'm not fond of mercenaries. Note: Blackwater is not a mercenary group by strict definition. They are not an open "for hire". They only work for the US, and will not take contracts from other governments. Nor are they hired specificaly to fight - they are hired to protect, and only engage if necessary. That's kind of wishy-washy, but it's a difference. It's two meaningful differences from a real mercenary.
Still, I'm not thrilled with using them. I hope it is only a temporary thing until we can get our head out of our asses and make a real committment to achieve a functional democracy with the Iraqis.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Shane, I do not know a single person in the military that disagrees with you on blackwater and the other firms like them. They are both more expensive to use than military forces and problematic in legality and control. No one I know likes them for the simple reason we dont like doing the same exact job for about a 1/3 of what they get paid....
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've noticed this amusing trend whereby the "privatize everything" people always have a reason not to privatize the one thing they really need.
My dad's like that. He's been all about privatizing everything his whole life, and now that he is having to spend his retirement money to afford healthcare for himself, he's for universal healthcare.
My dad's like that. He's been all about privatizing everything his whole life, and now that he is having to spend his retirement money to afford healthcare for himself, he's for universal healthcare.
Why specifically do you think that it cannot be substituted by the private market?MobBoss said:
"special needs?" What is this, special ed? We have a term for "special needs" in a particular interest in the government - pork barrel spending.
Who cares about pressure of soldiers? That's not important - what's important is quality legal aid, which can only be given through the free market. And if pressure is seriously a concern, they shouldn't be soldiers in the first place - let 'em put on their bootstraps and get through the job.
If we can't make things easier for people critical to the economy, then we shouldn't be making them easier for the military, which isn't. The free market could do it far more efficiently, because it solves everything.
My parents are richer than yours and thus have worked harder than you. You just want to keep your own cushy bureaucratic job and want to leech off taxpayers when the free market could do it far easier and much more efficiently. I will most likely work much harder than you and thus earn a lot more money because I will be in the private market and be a vital asset in the economy, unlike your unnecessary job.
Ecofarm
Deity
I've noticed this amusing trend whereby the "privatize everything" people always have a reason not to privatize the one thing they really need.
My dad's like that. He's been all about privatizing everything his whole life, and now that he is having to spend his retirement money to afford healthcare for himself, he's for universal healthcare.
That's a good story
However, my desire to maintain a standing military via public funding and oversight has nothing to do with what I need. It has to do with the will of the people, and its payment and regulation by the people. I'm not in the military anymore. Frankly, I want the government as small as possible and the only thing that I see as unacceptable, or undesirable, for the private market to maintain is the National Military. That's it. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with me personally. It's a matter of scale, loyalty, logistics, and the obvious need for a monopoly.
Seriously, you want to have multiple companies of a million+ people competing for national military contracts? Each with their own planes, battleships, and nukes?? Don't play dumb... the national military is obviously a public endeavor and the private market simply will not suffice. Nukes in private hands? Seriously? C'mon.
I think everyone can agree that it must be a public monopoly. The question of how large it should be is a different debate.
ps. I think Bill is drunk, his debates are not usualy this rediculas.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Because the private market wont do it as cheaply for soldiers as soldiers themselves. Its the same thing about soldiers medical care as well. By doing it 'in house' the military saves a lot of money. We would have to pay soldiers a lot more in order for them to be able to afford the type of private market care you are recommending. And yet, you dont understand that young soldiers in the military barely earn a wage over the poverty level in the USA. Some with families even qualify for assistance from WIC and other such programs.
Yes, soldiers have special needs. Thats why congress passess such laws as the Soldiers Civil Relief Act in order to address and protect the special needs of the soldier and their family.
If you want to get a handle on pork barrel spending then dont elect leaders who advocate it. But dont go taking out on soldiers.
Sigh. Bill you are speaking out of complete ignorance here. A soldier who is worried about things like legal issues at home cant be expected to perform at 100% while deployed. When we dont take care of soldiers...soldiers die. Because they dont have their minds on their work. The point in having the military care for its own is that a good portion of that pressure is relieved from the soldier so he can concentrate on his mission at hand.
And what is your source for this? What makes you think you can only get quality legal aid through the free market? Military attorneys go to the same lawschools that civilian attorneys do. Who better to understand what soldiers need legally than a military attorney? WHO?
Bill...truely...you are not even thinking about your comments here because they are truly moronic. Seriously...are you off your meds or something?
I think someone has finally taken too much Ron Paul and now they are experiencing an RPriapism. Seek medical attention immediately.
Errrr. What? Tell you what. I have seen you correctly label false logic pretty well in the past. Can you tell me which one you just committed here?
Uhm...no..not exactly. Actually, I may be deploying to Iraq in August - at least I have told them I will go if needed, so, my 'cushy' job may not be so 'cushy' too much longer. But if I gotta go then I will go.
And again, I have stated my position on how the 'free market' cant do this job easier let alone more efficiently. We do it at totally no cost to the soldier and it is in addition to our duties that we perform as soldiers. Part of the cost of doing business as it were, but its one of the things I like most about my job for the simple reason its the part where I get to help people instead of booting them out of the military.
Bill, for starters...you have no friggin idea how hard (or not) I have worked my entire life. I have worked some schedules that civilians would be aghast at and had to do things they would absolutely object to. Bottom line, you are talking like some spoiled little rich kid, waving their mommy and daddys money in someones face that they deem to be beneath them. It ill becomes you to have this petty and small attitude toward people who work hard - like soldiers do. As for me, I have an entire successful career behind me and am very close to starting my 2nd. You might do better...then again you might not. I can say with 100% confidence that I am proud of my service to my country. You wouldnt be the first rich kid to be a big disappointment to mommy and daddy. Only time will tell.
