Quote:I understand what you are saying, but Bush went out of his way to make sure he was taking care of us. He thought what he did by sending us to Iraq/Afghanistan was the right thing to do for the safety of everyone in this country. If it weren't for crazies like Bin Laden, Isis, etc, we'd be out of a job. It's not pretty, but we are there when called. Not once did Bush freeze pay, reduce cost of living, reduce housing, try to make us pay for our healthcare, and reduce education benefits.. This is all the things Obama has done since taking office. We feel under paid and unappreciated for the amount of things we are asked to do.
A civilian gets paid well over 6 figures for being in those countries as contractors. Most people in the military do not sniff that amount, and we are getting bombed and shot at. Whether Bush was right or wrong, he never made us feel like some worthless baby killer.
Pretty much spot on. However, to be fair it was not JUST President Obama that did those things, you also have to criticize Congress. That being said, you don't hear a peep out of The President when those things take place, and if you do it's all about partisan politics. He never takes responsibility, rather he always tries to place blame elsewhere and it's usually directed at the republican party. The bottom line is, he is not a leader. Heck, even President Clinton would reach across the aisle and get things done. This President "has a phone and a pen" and doesn't use those tools one bit to take care of the military.
Quote:
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="CSO14" data-cid="420846" data-time="1421436340">
<div>
Agreed sir. You are correct about the benefits. He's cutting it so much, and it has negative affects with military and their families. However, it's cool that we spend billions on illegals. and long expensive vacations for the current POTUS ever few months, and a lavish lifestyle in the whitehouse, and the highest white house food buget ever as the first family is rumored to eat only expensive dinners
</div>
</blockquote>
Oh yeah, don't forget the first lady, she has 24 assistants, and they have spent 44 million dollars on vacations. That's our tax money and our 18 trillion dollars in debt. Who is he king Obama?
Did this thread really devolve into griping about Presidents saluting?
Reagan saluted because he understood public relations. He did not establish a protocol, he correctly understood it would endear him to a large group of people who were still under the stigma of Viet Nam. Subsequent presidents continued the "tradition" for exactly the same reason we're reading here - if they don't, potential voters will get their panties in a wad.
Quote:Atleast he is returning it. Once again if you were in the military you would know in this situation he does NOT have to return it because his hands are full. Bush was good to us.
Got lots of you killed for oil only to see the country destabilized and now worse than ever with ISIS. Had reservists doing multiple tours. Even outsourced a lot of his mess to Blackwater. Plenty of military people don't agree with your rosy picture of George "mission accomplished" bush.
Quote:You can certainly choose to pick the side that likes to make baseless and unsupported claims. Or you can choose the more rational and informed side that would like to see some real evidence for any claims made.
so who says YOUR claims are truth and mine are baseless? Some say there is an Islamic Flag in the white house, some say there isn't both sides offer evidence to support their claim
Quote:Got lots of you killed for oil only to see the country destabilized and now worse than ever with ISIS. Had reservists doing multiple tours. Even outsourced a lot of his mess to Blackwater. Plenty of military people don't agree with your rosy picture of George "mission accomplished" bush.
Oh lord, another 9/11 truther and conspiracy theorist. Please try to gain facts independently, and stop listening to the mainstream media telling you how to think. Unless you have first hand experience, you don't REALLY know the situation. I'm sure we are just war-mongering baby killers...
Quote:Oh lord, another 9/11 truther and conspiracy theorist. Please try to gain facts independently, and stop listening to the mainstream media telling you how to think. Unless you have first hand experience, you don't REALLY know the situation. I'm sure we are just war-mongering baby killers...
Such as, the intel gathered by spec-ops and captured terrorists have led to plans the terrorists had, ways they transferred money, how they communicated, safehouses...Seems to me that the terrorists are on the run, scattered with no centeral leadership and that is a direct result from the "DUBYA" agenda...ISIS is another situation all together, Al Queda has been held at bay for quite some time
Quote:He never takes responsibility, rather he always tries to place blame elsewhere and it's usually directed at the republican party. The bottom line is, he is not a leader. Heck, even President Clinton would reach across the aisle and get things done. This President "has a phone and a pen" and doesn't use those tools one bit to take care of the military.
This is exactly what I was talking about when mentioning Obama and his NPD. A narcissist will NEVER admit that they are wrong, or that they have caused anyone harm. They'll try to point the finger at someone else and say that they brought it upon themselves. At least JFK had enough integrity to go out and take the blame for the Bay of Pigs debacle.
Quote:Oh lord, another 9/11 truther and conspiracy theorist. Please try to gain facts independently, and stop listening to the mainstream media telling you how to think. Unless you have first hand experience, you don't REALLY know the situation. I'm sure we are just war-mongering baby killers...
Steel doesn't melt, just sayin.
Quote:I understand what you are saying, but Bush went out of his way to make sure he was taking care of us. He thought what he did by sending us to Iraq/Afghanistan was the right thing to do for the safety of everyone in this country. If it weren't for crazies like Bin Laden, Isis, etc, we'd be out of a job. It's not pretty, but we are there when called. Not once did Bush freeze pay, reduce cost of living, reduce housing, try to make us pay for our healthcare, and reduce education benefits.. This is all the things Obama has done since taking office. We feel under paid and unappreciated for the amount of things we are asked to do.
A civilian gets paid well over 6 figures for being in those countries as contractors. Most people in the military do not sniff that amount, and we are getting bombed and shot at. Whether Bush was right or wrong, he never made us feel like some worthless baby killer.
Ok Bush paid better but that doesn't make him a better or worse leader?
Just your comment about being out of job if not for crazies is a little unsettling. Perhaps I'm reading to much into it, but wouldn't it be a good to not have ISIS and alqeada ect... In reality they're both problems we created, alqeada to fight Russia and ISIS to fight Syria but then we spill American blood and sacrifice American liberty in the name of security for fear of these threats we created. It's insanity, we should be reducing our influence world wide. Close the embassies in hostile nations. Pull out of NATO and the UN and take care of our own but decade long campaigns make all that impossible.
I'm sorry I just can subscribe that a job, any job working for the government entitled people to paychecks for life, healthcare for life, free education, and then take grips about federal debt seriously. What you are advocating is selective socialism, and even selective socialism is dangerous.
Quote:
But then, why in the world would a civilian salute a military person? It makes no sense. What's a civilian doing saluting?
Fresh hell, are you serious? The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He's their boss, so yes he should return the salute.
I didn't know Reagan was the first to institute it. I'm glad he did and I think every CIC should do it.
Quote:Ok Bush paid better but that doesn't make him a better or worse leader?
Just your comment about being out of job if not for crazies is a little unsettling. Perhaps I'm reading to much into it, but wouldn't it be a good to not have ISIS and alqeada ect... In reality they're both problems we created, alqeada to fight Russia and ISIS to fight Syria but then we spill American blood and sacrifice American liberty in the name of security for fear of these threats we created. It's insanity, we should be reducing our influence world wide. Close the embassies in hostile nations. Pull out of NATO and the UN and take care of our own but decade long campaigns make all that impossible.
I'm sorry I just can subscribe that a job, any job working for the government entitled people to paychecks for life, healthcare for life, free education, and then take grips about federal debt seriously. What you are advocating is selective socialism, and even selective socialism is dangerous.
You can't be serious. We do what less than 1% of the United States would never do for pennies. If it wasn't for these benefits they would be drafting people to maintain the proper security for this nation. In the civilian sector my current job pays double of what I make here. You act as if our paychecks and benefits is the main reason for the countries financial blunders. I am a patriot, and I love what I do, but I want my CIC and the rest of my superious to support me in something they want. All of these politicians who can retire after their one term in office, is not serving 20+ years in harms way for others. It's not an easy life for me or my family.
Quote:It probably doesn't matter much to people who have never served in the military. However, those of us who have notice those kinds of things, and I for one see it as offensive and rude.
Also, this thread is all about Military Perception of The President.
Exactly. To us Vets it is a huge deal.
Quote:You can't be serious. We do what less than 1% of the United States would never do for pennies. If it wasn't for these benefits they would be drafting people to maintain the proper security for this nation. In the civilian sector my current job pays double of what I make here. You act as if our paychecks and benefits is the main reason for the countries financial blunders. I am a patriot, and I love what I do, but I want my CIC and the rest of my superious to support me in something they want. All of these politicians who can retire after their one term in office, is not serving 20+ years in harms way for others. It's not an easy life for me or my family.
I was worried as I type that it would come off wrong, so let me start with an apology. I don't mean to imply what you do and what your brothers in arms do isn't heroic nor in deserving of recognition. What I'm trying to point is the mentality I saw in your previous post.
It's a mentality that has consumed every aspect of our society and to me it's the single biggest threat we face. The big threat isn't Radical Islam (albeit it's a serious one), Conservative Militias, Liberal Agendas, or even Government Intrusion, the biggest threat is when ever single person one way or another is dependent on government.
I don't know how to make my point with out being offensive, so forgive me this will offend many. It's not my intention but it's simply impossible to make the point with out offending some people I have deep respect for. When military members demand benefits for life, it is a form of socialism you are being conditioned to accept. Socialism is a drug, once you've accepted you deserve these benefits for ____ reason you have lost the ability to argue those benefits are
not the role of government to provide.
It is not governments role to provide healthcare, it is not governments role to provide penchants and retirement, it is not governments role to feed us, you see where I'm going. By establishing socialism for military members they lay out the argument that these benefits should be extended to everyone.
Remember it was Marx that said
"From <span style="font-weight:bold;color:rgb(84,84,84);font-family:arial, sans-serif;">each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." </span>
Quote:I was worried as I type that it would come off wrong, so let me start with an apology. I don't mean to imply what you do and what your brothers in arms do isn't heroic nor in deserving of recognition. What I'm trying to point is the mentality I saw in your previous post.
It's a mentality that has consumed every aspect of our society and to me it's the single biggest threat we face. The big threat isn't Radical Islam (albeit it's a serious one), Conservative Militias, Liberal Agendas, or even Government Intrusion, the biggest threat is when ever single person one way or another is dependent on government.
I don't know how to make my point with out being offensive, so forgive me this will offend many. It's not my intention but it's simply impossible to make the point with out offending some people I have deep respect for. When military members demand benefits for life, it is a form of socialism you are being conditioned to accept. Socialism is a drug, once you've accepted you deserve these benefits for ____ reason you have lost the ability to argue those benefits are not the role of government to provide.
It is not governments role to provide healthcare, it is not governments role to provide penchants and retirement, it is not governments role to feed us, you see where I'm going. By establishing socialism for military members they lay out the argument that these benefits should be extended to everyone.
Remember it was Marx that said "From <span style="font-weight:bold;color:rgb(84,84,84);font-family:arial, sans-serif;">each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." </span>
I don't think any of us want recognition. If they do they don't know what it means to "serve." I agree we do not need people to have dependency on government, but if you work for it, and earn it, then I feel it's just. Just like when companies used to have pensions. Obama care should be abolished. They should have never stepped in and taken over. They should have regulated the costs. No worries Eric, I didn't take any offense.
Quote:Ok Bush paid better but that doesn't make him a better or worse leader?
Just your comment about being out of job if not for crazies is a little unsettling. Perhaps I'm reading to much into it, but wouldn't it be a good to not have ISIS and alqeada ect... In reality they're both problems we created, alqeada to fight Russia and ISIS to fight Syria but then we spill American blood and sacrifice American liberty in the name of security for fear of these threats we created. It's insanity, we should be reducing our influence world wide. Close the embassies in hostile nations. Pull out of NATO and the UN and take care of our own but decade long campaigns make all that impossible.
I'm sorry I just can subscribe that a job, any job working for the government entitled people to paychecks for life, healthcare for life, free education, and then take grips about federal debt seriously. What you are advocating is selective socialism, and even selective socialism is dangerous.
Eric, for the most part politically I agree with most of your posts. However, this one I must disagree with. You really should do a bit of research.
We did not "create" Al Qaeda or ISIS. When it comes to Al Qaeda, it was spawned from other factions including the faction that we did fund and help, that being The Taliban. However, at the time they were not called or referred to as The Taliban. You have to remember that the rest of the world does not "see" things the way that we do. The group that we funded to fight against the Soviet Union was in fact a "state" or the countries that we know as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some of those fighters broke off and formed their own "union" that became known as "The Taliban". Part of that group broke off yet again and became known as Al Qaeda.
Also remember that this was still during the "Cold War" and the Soviet Union was our biggest enemy and threat.
It was all about ideology. Today the bigger and more powerful factions are gaining more strength and are getting way more lethal. You can not deal with these people by conventional means (talk) or conventional warfare. They do not respect the rules of the Geneva Convention, and they conduct warfare in a ruthless and dangerous way.
Quote:Eric, for the most part politically I agree with most of your posts. However, this one I must disagree with. You really should do a bit of research.
We did not "create" Al Qaeda or ISIS. When it comes to Al Qaeda, it was spawned from other factions including the faction that we did fund and help, that being The Taliban. However, at the time they were not called or referred to as The Taliban. You have to remember that the rest of the world does not "see" things the way that we do. The group that we funded to fight against the Soviet Union was in fact a "state" or the countries that we know as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some of those fighters broke off and formed their own "union" that became known as "The Taliban". Part of that group broke off yet again and became known as Al Qaeda.
Also remember that this was still during the "Cold War" and the Soviet Union was our biggest enemy and threat.
It was all about ideology. Today the bigger and more powerful factions are gaining more strength and are getting way more lethal. You can not deal with these people by conventional means (talk) or conventional warfare. They do not respect the rules of the Geneva Convention, and they conduct warfare in a ruthless and dangerous way.
We're arguing semantics here, the United States established the group that later became Al Qaeda to take on the Soviet Union during the cold war, the goal was to make Afghanistan the Soviet Unions Vietnam. Had we not given them training and weapons would they have been much of a problem a few decades later?
Same goes for ISIS, they're a direct result of us Arming the "rebels" in Syria to take on Assad. When Assad proved harder then thought they shifted focus to Iraq and started calling themselves ISIS.
It's an age old story, we see a problem, arm a group of rebels to take on the problem and then a few years later that group of rebels turns on us. When will we just learn to stay the hell out of it?
Of course we can't deal with them by conventional war, there's no one to declare war on? We're at war with an ideology, you can't defeat an idea. It's an endless war with endless excuses to expand government power and overreach.
Quote:I don't think any of us want recognition. If they do they don't know what it means to "serve." I agree we do not need people to have dependency on government, but if you work for it, and earn it, then I feel it's just. Just like when companies used to have pensions. Obama care should be abolished. They should have never stepped in and taken over. They should have regulated the costs. No worries Eric, I didn't take any offense.
I think military members should absolutely be paid and paid well for their services. I just think offering them benefits for life after service is just as dangerous as any other form of government dependence.
I'll bring it home a little, I know a guy that served 20 years in the military, he spent 20 years in Germany. He was from what I understand a tent builder. They built tents (some kind of big tent I assume) for various operations. He was never in harms way, he was never in any danger and the entire 20 years he was given housing, education, food, transpiration and then paid on top of that. Now he's retired he still gets a paycheck for life, VA loans to purchase his home, socialized medicine to cover his health care, Grants to pursue education, Insurance discounts through USAA (also extended to his kids and his kids kids) access to tax free purchasing on military bases. Where does it stop at what point is he no longer being paid for his service but now no different then the guy collecting every form of welfare available?
Why is it that we should treat civilians different from military, these benefits are good for one and not the other? Are police officers not as important as members of the military? What about doctors and firemen?
I'm nobody important, fine but I can't really understand the mentality that some people should receive a form of socialism while others shouldn't. I think all forms of socialism are wrong, regardless of how noble the cause.
Quote:I was worried as I type that it would come off wrong, so let me start with an apology. I don't mean to imply what you do and what your brothers in arms do isn't heroic nor in deserving of recognition. What I'm trying to point is the mentality I saw in your previous post.
It's a mentality that has consumed every aspect of our society and to me it's the single biggest threat we face. The big threat isn't Radical Islam (albeit it's a serious one), Conservative Militias, Liberal Agendas, or even Government Intrusion, the biggest threat is when ever single person one way or another is dependent on government.
I don't know how to make my point with out being offensive, so forgive me this will offend many. It's not my intention but it's simply impossible to make the point with out offending some people I have deep respect for. When military members demand benefits for life, it is a form of socialism you are being conditioned to accept. Socialism is a drug, once you've accepted you deserve these benefits for ____ reason you have lost the ability to argue those benefits are not the role of government to provide.
It is not governments role to provide healthcare, it is not governments role to provide penchants and retirement, it is not governments role to feed us, you see where I'm going. By establishing socialism for military members they lay out the argument that these benefits should be extended to everyone.
Remember it was Marx that said "From <span style="font-weight:bold;color:rgb(84,84,84);font-family:arial, sans-serif;">each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." </span>
Eric,
I too agree with most of your posts but not this one. Military veterans literally bust their [BAD WORD REMOVED] day in and day out 24/7 and 365. Sure, there are some people in the military who have never fought in combat and still receive benefits, but military life is extremely demanding. Regardless of whether you're in special operations or a cook at the National Guard, and unlike private military contractors who get paid over 100 grand, the veterans benefits do serve a purpose by helping to maintain an all volunteer military.
Do you think that anyone in the military really wants to go back to a draft based system? where the military can just grab anyone off the street and put them in combat? Selective service is already pushing it enough. I would even say that without veterans benefits in this Country, there would have been a revolt against the Government a long time ago. After WW1, they had to brutally crush a veterans protest which demanded more benefits.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/48c.asp
And finally, I don't think that veterans benefits is as much of "selective socialism" as it is a "thank you" for your personal sacrifices and commitment. And even then, the oligarchs in Washington can still care less for the men and women who have served our Country. As long as it can advance their interests. And that is a very sad thing.
Quote:I think military members should absolutely be paid and paid well for their services. I just think offering them benefits for life after service is just as dangerous as any other form of government dependence.
I'll bring it home a little, I know a guy that served 20 years in the military, he spent 20 years in Germany. He was from what I understand a tent builder. They built tents (some kind of big tent I assume) for various operations. He was never in harms way, he was never in any danger and the entire 20 years he was given housing, education, food, transpiration and then paid on top of that. Now he's retired he still gets a paycheck for life, VA loans to purchase his home, socialized medicine to cover his health care, Grants to pursue education, Insurance discounts through USAA (also extended to his kids and his kids kids) access to tax free purchasing on military bases. Where does it stop at what point is he no longer being paid for his service but now no different then the guy collecting every form of welfare available?
Why is it that we should treat civilians different from military, these benefits are good for one and not the other? Are police officers not as important as members of the military? What about doctors and firemen?
I'm entitled to all those things through my retirement fund and I'm in the private sector. Heck, I'm entitled to dozens of similar benefits right now while I'm still working. My company provides tuition assistance, housing assistance, daycare assistance, dozens of commercial discounts, and even a car buying program through Toyota. I think you've taken this whole thing a bit far, government employees are and should be entitled to government retirement benefits the same as any private sector worker. Your friend worked 20 years, that should entitle him to vestment in a retirement plan. The military in particular should be entitled to transitional help because of the simple fact that the dangers of the the job often turn them into cripples or head cases and we as a society have a responsibility to provide that assistance when they are finished with their service. Its not WELFARE to receive agreed upon fringe benefits for performing a service, its COMPENSATION.
Now politicians, that there is a different story altogether.