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.

 

But why is it different for politicians? They're performing an agreed service? 

 

I get it we all love the military, it's a noble cause and politicians are the scum of the earth. But if you step back what is the actual difference? Both work for the government. 

---

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.

 

But I'm not calling it welfare, I'm pointing out it's a form of socialism. Socialism and welfare are not synonymous. Now maybe it's a form of socialism that can be justified but the first step is understanding it is a form of socialism. 

---

But I'm not calling it welfare, I'm pointing out it's a form of socialism. Socialism and welfare are not synonymous. Now maybe it's a form of socialism that can be justified but the first step is understanding it is a form of socialism. 

 

So now the compensatory exchange between an employer and an employee is socialism? I can't get on board with that perception. Just because the government is the employer that does not automatically make the exchange socialism.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

But why is it different for politicians? They're performing an agreed service? 

 

I get it we all love the military, it's a noble cause and politicians are the scum of the earth. But if you step back what is the actual difference? Both work for the government. 

 

Politicians are different because they write their employment rules. That's crony capitalism at best.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So now the compensatory exchange between an employer and an employee is socialism? I can't get on board with that perception. Just because the government is the employer that does not automatically make the exchange socialism.

 

There's a huge difference in an employer who generates income in the private sector and the government who can only redistribute tax revenue. If we view government as just another private sector entity income distribution as a whole is an invalid argument.

 

Yes Socialism is a distribution of good through a central authority to individuals sometimes as welfare and sometimes as payment for services but the fact that it's revenue generated through tax and distribution through government is a prime example of socialism. 

---

Politicians are different because they write their employment rules. That's crony capitalism at best.

 

Not all politicians write their employment rules. 

---

There's a huge difference in an employer who generates income in the private sector and the government who can only redistribute tax revenue. If we view government as just another private sector entity income distribution as a whole is an invalid argument.

 

Yes Socialism is a distribution of good through a central authority to individuals sometimes as welfare and sometimes as payment for services but the fact that it's revenue generated through tax and distribution through government is a prime example of socialism. 

 

Then we'll just agree to disagree.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Then we'll just agree to disagree.

Let me try it from a different approach. Do you agree social security is a form of socialism, a socialist program at least. Why?

---

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>

When you are employed by the military, these things are part of the deal...When one enlists or re-enlists, these are terms of the contract you sign along with the person who swears you in who is the rep for the government generally your Commanding Officer. So in the case of the military, it most certainly is the responsibility of the government to provide these things...the problem is, the Veterans Affairs budget keeps getting cut to the point they can't pay for the benefits...

---

But why is it different for politicians? They're performing an agreed service? 

 

I get it we all love the military, it's a noble cause and politicians are the scum of the earth. But if you step back what is the actual difference? Both work for the government. 

 

I've known a lot of government workers in my time.  Heck, my wife technically works for the government since she teaches at a public school.  My mom and dad both worked for the federal government.  My father-in-law worked for the FBI which is in turn the Federal government, and one of my brother in laws works for the federal government.

 

Yeah, there's a difference between people who work for the government, and politicians.  To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.  

 

So... you think these people shouldn't have retirement benefits?  Because they work for the government?  Because that's 'socialism' apparently.

 

I guess I should be a socialist then.  Down with privatization.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

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 ca

I understand where you are coming from and on the surface your point makes sense.  The one thing you are leaving out is that when a citizen enlist in the armed forces they are writing a blank check to the United States of America.  They are accepting that they may be deployed in a foreign land, work long hours in harsh conditions, fight in a war, they may even lose life or limb. They do all of this for little pay.  Yes they do get 3 squares, health care, and lodging, but unless you have served you may not realize what that actually means.  Heck in many cases we treat our prisoners better than we treat our volunteer defense forces.  

 

Another thing to consider is not everyone who enlist spends 20 years in and gets those lifetime benefits (a quick search showed me only 17% of those that enlist do).

 

As a former sailor I am open to discussing pension reform (higher pay during active duty in trade for a lower pension after, real healthcare for those injured in service to their country, ect)  The question you have to ask is what is their service worth to you?  

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I've known a lot of government workers in my time.  Heck, my wife technically works for the government since she teaches at a public school.  My mom and dad both worked for the federal government.  My father-in-law worked for the FBI which is in turn the Federal government, and one of my brother in laws works for the federal government.

 

Yeah, there's a difference between people who work for the government, and politicians.  To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.  

 

So... you think these people shouldn't have retirement benefits?  Because they work for the government?  Because that's 'socialism' apparently.

 

I guess I should be a socialist then.  Down with privatization.  

 

I'm not arguing for or against the benefits. I'm pointing out the system used to distribute these benefits. There's a whole plethora of people that work for the government, from trash collectors to soldiers, teachers and politicians. I also have family that works for the government, and that doesn't change the reality that socialism is used to pay for benefits of government employees. 

 

Like I said maybe we can discuss if some socialism is justifiable but it sure does seem to upset people when you point out a good portion of workforce is already paid through socialist programs. 

---

I understand where you are coming from and on the surface your point makes sense.  The one thing you are leaving out is that when a citizen enlist in the armed forces they are writing a blank check to the United States of America.  They are accepting that they may be deployed in a foreign land, work long hours in harsh conditions, fight in a war, they may even lose life or limb. They do all of this for little pay.  Yes they do get 3 squares, health care, and lodging, but unless you have served you may not realize what that actually means.  Heck in many cases we treat our prisoners better than we treat our volunteer defense forces.  

 

Another thing to consider is not everyone who enlist spends 20 years in and gets those lifetime benefits (a quick search showed me only 17% of those that enlist do).

 

As a former sailor I am open to discussing pension reform (higher pay during active duty in trade for a lower pension after, real healthcare for those injured in service to their country, ect)  The question you have to ask is what is their service worth to you?  

 

Fair enough it's a contract I understand that. I don't even have a problem saying we don't do enough for members of our military. I'm just simply trying to point out how people are being conditioned to expect government benefits including members of the military. 

---

When you are employed by the military, these things are part of the deal...When one enlists or re-enlists, these are terms of the contract you sign along with the person who swears you in who is the rep for the government generally your Commanding Officer. So in the case of the military, it most certainly is the responsibility of the government to provide these things...the problem is, the Veterans Affairs budget keeps getting cut to the point they can't pay for the benefits...

 

Yes they are agreeing to provide those services to members of the military but the distribution of those services is done through socialist programs. That's my entire point, in order for government to provide healthcare, food, housing, penchants, education and so on they must confiscate it from somewhere and redistribute somewhere else. 

 

Is it justifiable, maybe. Is it redistribution, undoubtedly. 

 

When you try to build an argument government has no role in these social programs you lose all credibility if your willing to accept government should provide it for some and not others.

---

Yeah, but look at who took all of the credit for that raid...it certainly wasn't DEVGRU. A lot of special ops guys on many of the forums said that the raid wasn't really all that daring. And that even an infantry unit could have pulled it off with similar success.

So what took so long for it to happen in the first place if a couple of cadets could have done it?

---

I'm not arguing for or against the benefits. I'm pointing out the system used to distribute these benefits. There's a whole plethora of people that work for the government, from trash collectors to soldiers, teachers and politicians. I also have family that works for the government, and that doesn't change the reality that socialism is used to pay for benefits of government employees. 

 

Like I said maybe we can discuss if some socialism is justifiable but it sure does seem to upset people when you point out a good portion of workforce is already paid through socialist programs. 

You know that money you use to buy stuff from those good ol' Private Organizations?


It's backed by the Federal Government.  Otherwise it would be totally worthless.  The pieces of paper you own (unless you invest all in gold, and in which case I'm wondering where you shop that lets you pay in gold) and have in the bank would be totally worthless if the federal government weren't operational.  Someone of course has to print that money too.  So you're able to buy stuff thanks to taxpayers who pay for money to be printed.  So you too are paid by socialism (again, unless you are paid in gold)

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Fair enough it's a contract I understand that. I don't even have a problem saying we don't do enough for members of our military. I'm just simply trying to point out how people are being conditioned to expect government benefits including members of the military. 

Seriously???? We are NOT conditioned to accept handouts from the government. We are conditioned to bust our [BLEEP] to serve this country.

 

As someone stated before, contracts were signed, lives were given over to the government to do with us what they wanted/what was required. In return they pay us (have you seen the pay of an enlisted troop? Not even minimum wage per hour considering we're officially on duty 24/7), feed us (chow hall, MRE's), clothe us (uniforms), house us (barracks, tents, on post housing) and provide healthcare and retirement for a job we do 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We are expected to be ready 24/7 to be at the military's beck and call because that's how it works. No other job I can think of for the average American comes close. And we will go into harms way to protect this country, whether we or anyone else agrees with the why of it, or not.

 

I agree with most of what you put out on the board but in this you are sorely off base. In so many ways you are off base. Unless you have lived the military life you don't even know the hardship that goes into it for the troops and their families. We deserve every bit of retirement we earned, every bit of that healthcare (which BTW is not entirely how you think it is or you wouldn't consider it socialized), every bit of that VA loan (it's a LOAN we have to pay back- hello), every bit of whatever USAA wants to offer us.

 

I've been both the Soldier and the spouse so I know I speak from both perspectives in that you have no idea of what you're talking about. 

---

Yes they are agreeing to provide those services to members of the military but the distribution of those services is done through socialist programs. That's my entire point, in order for government to provide healthcare, food, housing, penchants, education and so on they must confiscate it from somewhere and redistribute somewhere else. 

 

Is it justifiable, maybe. Is it redistribution, undoubtedly. 

 

When you try to build an argument government has no role in these social programs you lose all credibility if your willing to accept government should provide it for some and not others.

WHAT? The Veterans Administration is a socialist program? Do you even know how the system works? After retirement/seperation from the military, the Veteran Affairs Administartion is where the funds come from for health/vision and dental or IF you are near an active military base that has such facilities, you can go there for services...While on active duty, you simply go to your base medical/dental or facility...The problem is the government keeps cutting the budget for the VA

 

The governement does not confiscate food for the sailors at sea...they provide it because when you are out to sea, you have no where to eat but your ship...on military bases, you generally don't have time to run grab something to eat...food is provided because you are paid as a military person 24 hours a day...you are NEVER off from the military...sure you might get a day off from your job, but you are STILL on the military clock...

 

My friend, you really need to investigate what it's like and how the military works before you try to condemn it as being provided for by socialist properties...we get such benefits because we are paid for 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year but we still are on the clock on days off and on leave...totally different than private sector and those who have never served have no clue what it's "all about

 

Most jobs have benefits, the military benefits used to be the main reason people joined other than to serve their country...Because of politics our benefits package has shrunk along with our pay...We are provided the benefits, no we are not provided with the benefits, we EARN them...

---

Let me add, lest anyone gets their panties in a bunch.... We deserve it because we EARN(ED) it. Period. 

---

Seriously???? We are NOT conditioned to accept handouts from the government. We are conditioned to bust our [BAD WORD REMOVED] to serve this country.

 

As someone stated before, contracts were signed, lives were given over to the government to do with us what they wanted/what was required. In return they pay us (have you seen the pay of an enlisted troop? Not even minimum wage per hour considering we're officially on duty 24/7), feed us (chow hall, MRE's), clothe us (uniforms), house us (barracks, tents, on post housing) and provide healthcare and retirement for a job we do 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We are expected to be ready 24/7 to be at the military's beck and call because that's how it works. No other job I can think of for the average American comes close. And we will go into harms way to protect this country, whether we or anyone else agrees with the why of it, or not.


 

I agree with most of what you put out on the board but in this you are sorely off base. In so many ways you are off base. Unless you have lived the military life you don't even know the hardship that goes into it for the troops and their families. We deserve every bit of retirement we earned, every bit of that healthcare (which BTW is not entirely how you think it is or you wouldn't consider it socialized), every bit of that VA loan (it's a LOAN we have to pay back- hello), every bit of whatever USAA wants to offer us.

 

I've been both the Soldier and the spouse so I know I speak from both perspectives in that you have no idea of what you're talking about. 

We are expected to be able to leave home at a moments notice in case of emergency...we can be recalled at any time on any day if we are home, on the weekend or on leave if an emergency..We can be eating Easter dinner with our family and the phone rings with an order to return to base IMMEDIATELY and deployment within the hour...Kiss your wife and kids good by without knowing where the hell your headed, or for how long...

---