Do we really support our troops?

Since Viet Nam I am frequently troubled by our troop support, and have vowed to do my part to not let the troops experience the receptions they received after this war. So I am going to ask some hard questions to stir some debate. We have elections coming up and all that I am asking is that we inform ourselves before voting for candidates. The top example for me is the support given by the public during WWII. I admire that so many were so involved in aiding in some way the war effort(in WWII). What is different today? I think what is different is not the needs our soldiers face but how we support them back home. I am going to ask the hard questions but my follow through may be more revealing. If you claim to support our troops then I ask how deeply do you support them? Would you send your own family to war today? Or would you be one of those that would pay high college costs to keep your children from having to serve? Some say this is a war for the poor because the rich are able to find ways not to serve....what do you think? If the draft was successful in WWII why shouldn't we be using it today? That is what equalizes the load carried over our total population more fairly. Our current troops now have sometimes served 7 stints in current conflicts....most veterans of past wars cannot list that many times of being re-sent to the war regions. I so admire these troops that have gone and gone again and again to serve their country. Now that we witness this level of service I am going to ask the really hard questions: If you really support these troops, have you voiced this in any monetary way? Aren't we practicing hypocrisy if we claim to support these troops and have opposed the raising of taxes! I think it is hypocrisy, because we have been at war an unprecedented period of time, have expected a small number to do the whole job and have supported a perverted financial structure of VOODOO economics that secures loans from the Chinese to cover our war debts that have barely gotten needed armor to our troops only after they were already in place in battle! When have we ever expected our soldiers to serve in a decade of warfare and not raised a penny of taxpayer dollar on their behalf? Oh yes we will foot the bill and the we part that is going to pay is future generations because the deficits are on the backs of our children. That is the voodoo we are using instead of relying on the everyday citizen to do his part. What kind of citizen have you been? I am not wealthy but I am prepared to pay what is fair in taxes to support the troops I so admire. I am willing to do that even if I know there is waste and corruption but if some of it helps our troops that is the cost of going to war. If we are not willing to do this we should be electing people who will at least bring them home as we are not really supportive of the war we are making them fight. I ask you to re-consider your level of support, turn away from the political propaganda and answer the questions for yourself in the subjects I have brought up here and try to vote to make something work for our troops and our country. It is the voter who is most important in keeping our system viable so please take the responsibility seriously. Go ahead and rake me over the STUMP but maybe you will think about what I have mentioned here some. Our troops may not come home to jobs, may have unprecedented physical damages, and may have the most serious PTSD due to the length and depth of their service. What are we doing to get ready for that? Are we going to witness them under the overpasses with hands outstretched? We have done that before....can't we do better?

 

Victor, I hear you. Our troops need assitance from the government they served so valiantly for. However, I would like to say that the money could be there already, if it could and would be used better.

My wife works for the food stamp office, and the stories she tells about abuse of the system is horrifying. Young women getting pregnant two times in one year who can't afford anything really steams my clams!!!! Girls like them do nothing buch leech off society, when the money spent on her stupidity could be used for someone who actually contributed to his or her country- like paying for a veterans medication (and I'm not just picking on the girls either, there are plenty of dumb young men around).
I pick my wife up from work, and see people comming into the parking lot driving a decked out Suburban with chrome wheels, leapard interior, and a fancy paint job. This car's payments probably cost more than my mortgage!!!

I for one am so tired of taking care of young people my age to the extent that we do. There are people that have been on assistance for 30 years my wife has told me who have no medical reasons or disabilities. They get by from milking "Uncle Sam".

All in all, the soldiers and the seniors deserve or top care, not people like me who can actually work and stretch a penny.

 

I have the same complaints against this waste but I have to argue.....the money isn't there......that of which you speak is also on the backs of future generations. That is the Voodoo I am referring to...all of us thinking there is money there.....when it is being borrowed from China to fund things creating a very large deficit. Too many times we hear of soldiers getting things they need while at war from sources other than the government. We have beefed up some medical care for them but even that has not been paid for.......it has been borrowed. When our congress makes an appropriation today it is usually funded from the deficit....loans, loans, while spending is well beyond our tax generated monies. Certain leaders in the past engaged in war with this method of funding and most of us sleep along accepting this.

 

The root of the problem is this: not everyone is responsible or self sufficient to be a productive citizen. Most problems come from the left wanting to use the power of the government to "correct" these "wrongs".

The left wants the government to take care of these individuals; like, cover pre existing medical conditions (even though the child was born to folks who ignored their own responsibility to provide for the child medically before any diagnosis was ever needed.

In other words, if you can't support your child, don't have them in the first place; Prepare for old age by saving and investing (Social Security was meant to supplement not provide retirement; however, a lot of people just dont save or care about the future and expect SS to provide for all their needs). Wefare has destroyed a lot of minority families since it is apparently no problem for the government (with your money) to pay for every single mother to pump out more illegitimate babies to take care of.

Of course, the not-responsible get hooked on Nanny government. It's easier than working. And the control freaks of the left think the more they control everyone's life, they better off they will be. Given the chance, the Feds will be telling you what to eat, when to eat it, what car to buy and how far you can drive it.(Recently, they tell you you can't buy incandescent light bulbs)

I for one am damn tired of the federal bureaucracy tell me what to do.

Once, this nation lived on an ocean of liberty with small islands of governemnt power; today, we live in puddles of liberty surrounded by vast continents of government power.

Something is going to give and soon, I'm afraid.

 

I don't understand where the "support our troops" portion turned into "welfare mothers" and other rants, but that isn't right somehow. One doesn't have much to do with the other. Just as Reagan's "welfare queen" in a Cadillac was false, so is this one (in most of the fifty states).


Study of welfare families over the years seem to contradict that point of view, the latest was only finished in the late ‘90s, but that time-frame may not be a flaw, as it seems to co-relate with the past from 1940 on.

Goto:

Welfare gives mothers an economic incentive to have more children

And seems to be contrary to the mid-‘90s law which restricted the rules on "welfare mothers"

Goto:

STATES THAT PAY MOTHERS TO CARE FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN

My homestate of Montana has one of the most "profitable" plans, but then again it is limited to the number of children. It also contains provisions which require the "single mother" to at least have some reason NOT to join the workfore.

Goto:

MONTANA

Montana's "At-Home Infant Care Program (AHIC)," was established administratively, without legislation, as a two-year, limited pilot in December 2001. It gives low-income parents with incomes up to 150% of the poverty line up to $ 384 a month, 90% of what the state pays child-care providers to do the same work, to stay home with their infants for up to two years.


AHIC is administered by the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services and is funded with solely state funds (but apparently these funds count as part of the state's "maintenance of effort" funding for purposes of TANF). The department set aside $ 250,000 to fund 60 families for the first two years.

Program participants are limited to a lifetime total of 24 months, but this time can be used in varying combinations. Families are not permitted to receive TANF cash assistance while on AHIC, even if they are income eligible. Families may access work or education while on AHIC, but do not qualify for child care assistance. To qualify for the program, families must have worked one of the three months before applying at the rate of 120 hours per month for two-parent families, 60 hours for single parent families, and 40 hours for single parent families who are attending post secondary education or training.

The parent must be at least age 18, or if younger, must have a high school diploma or general equivalency degree. A teen parent currently in high school may participate in the program during summer breaks. Parents must also complete a parent-directed child development education plan, which may include activities in health, child development, nutrition, or other related areas.

Administrative authorization for the program can be found in Montana Administrative Regulations, Sec. 37. 80. 204.

Goto:

STATES THAT PAY MOTHERS TO CARE FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN

And just as a sidebar, the third child in Montana is the stopping point. After that child, no increase in payment to a single mother is allowed. I know that sounds harsh, but here (Montana) it is felt that a female who remains (or now attempts) to "scam" the state out of funds is a criminal, not a "needy" person.

I just couldn't resist, Montana is a pretty "conservative" state in many ways, but very "liberal" in how we treat our fellow citizens. We want the young mothers to care for their children, but we WON'T pay for the production of more kids. You get to a point, and the "benefits" stop increasing. To me, that seems like a reasonable request, and requirement for state aid.

 

All I can say is what my better half tells me. She's been doing this work for years now, and tells me daily of the amount of abuse she sees with the system. People who truly need the help sometimes (like the elderly) do not even qualify, and then others who demand the help and are able-bodied enough scream her out when their check in the mail is late.

She aint no "tea bagger" either! She's a registerd Dem who voted for Hillary.

 

Please...I would like a continued dialogue on our troops....and how we support them---we have many economic woes....but our troops are giving their lives for the rest of us....can't we think and talk about them?

 

Victor...as far as whether I'd send my own children? I'd not send them. I will let them choose that path if they want it. And I will support them. I've already told my oldest that if he wants college he's going to have to work hard and get scholarships because I won't be able to shoulder the load for him...when he gets into college I'll still be paying off my tremendous amount of school debt. He is a smart kid and knows what the military can do for him...and he knows the risks because I've tried very hard to show them that the military isn't like a movie or a video game. I've seen friends go, many of them, for multiple tours...and I have one that didn't come back. I see every day the effects of a misguided attempt at helping returning veterans because I know many of them...some doing great others suffering horribly from either physical or mental wounds. The money aspect of it? That has never been a thought in any war since the Bond drives of WWII. And with a war that is already so unpopular if we enacted the draft? We'd see riots far beyond that from the Vietnam era. The entire US economy is based on fiction anyway...it has been since the Federal Reserve was created in what, 1903? I do what I can to donate to veteran causes, donate blood, and support the troops in all the ways I can. I'm one man...but I like to think I do what I can.

 

Luketdrifter I respect your answer---you have considered things and that is all one can ask of a citizen. I must admit that I do not have all the good answers but I want more people to think of our troops. That is all I am trying to stir.

 

"I don't understand where the "support our troops" portion turned into "welfare mothers" and other rants, but that isn't right somehow. One doesn't have much to do with the other. Just as Reagan's "welfare queen" in a Cadillac was false, so is this one (in most of the fifty states)."

I think the point is that when the Federal budget tends to sop up $$ for illegitimate kids support, it makes it even harder to provide top quality medical and mental health care.

Of course, the problem would go away if only we had followed Obama's idea to make the vets pay for their own medical care since "they volunteered for duty".

As for what else the feds are up to I refer you all to http://news-political.com/2010/09/28/the-united-states-government-is-out-of-control-and-dangerous/

 

Thanks Biak, for the demonstration of how one can do something on behalf of our troops. It reminded me of the hard sacrifice some must make in being away from home. People who are normally home bodies with their family and children who give that up to be separated and distant from their families for so many of these stints they have had to serve first in Iraq and now again in Afghanistan. I too try to stay away from this stump but this subject tipped me over the top to place me here and believe it or not I struggle to stay away from here.

 

I don't know that I would support a tax unless it was worded where the government couldn't dip into it for other things. I DO support the troops, both abroad and those who have served previously, and I don't do it by putting a bumper sticker on my car saying I support them. I give donations frequently to transportation for Veterans here, we routinely send care packages both overseas and to the Vet's locally. On Veterans Day, we go and deliver items.

 

My two cents.

Yes I've sent two, including one in Heland Province Afghanistan right now.

This is BS. My oldest son, Chris, was attending VMI when he enlisted. I was paying the costs, and VMI ain't cheap, but I could afford it. He thought it wasn't right for his peers to be going to war and him to sit at home. His best friend from Iraq, Justin, had a full ride football scholarship as a linebacker to either University of Florida or Florida State, I don't remember which, and he enlisted for the same reasons. Since there is no draft like Vietnam going to college is irrelevant. In fact the demographics of military enlistees show they are predominately middle class, white, are more educated than the average for their age groups and are disproportionately from homes in the upper two quintiles of income. In fact the percentage of military personnel from the lowest income quintile is significantly lower than the percentage of the general population in that income group. So the poor fighting for the rich is leftwing, anti-war propoganda, that's a fact. If any group is bearing a disproportionate share of the fighting it is the southern and western states that provide the largest per capita percentages of military personnel.



Chris 2nd from left, and Justin, center, celebrate the Marine Corps 231st Birthday with a beer in Iraq 2006.

No, we would have a less educated, less motivated, less proficient force.

This really a problem! The debate over staying or pulling out of Iraq lengthened that war by at least two years. It was only when it became apparent that we were going to stay and surged troops that the situation turned around. Chris' last tour in Iraq was in 2006/2007. When Chris was in Ramadi, at the start of the surge, Marines were not allowed to gather in groups of more than three, and and couldn't go outside, even at their FOB without their flak and Kevlar because of snipers and indirect fire attacks. Going into most parts of the city was certain to lead to a gunbattle. Eight months later Marines were doing organized PT, in formation, wearing PT gear in the city. It was that safe! When it was apparent that we were in it to win, the people came over to our side, including many former insurgents, and took up arms against the bad guys.
We have the same problem in Afghanistan now. We're surging troops but telling everyone we'll be leaving in less than a year. If you were an Afghani and heard that, would you risk you life and that of your family by siding with us, or wait us out?

Here's an excerpt from an article on Marine Corps Female Engagement Teams in Afghanistan:

"Leaving the male Marines at the door, Sample and Oliver enter Gul Jan's mud-walled compound lined with barbed wire. In a room decorated with gold brocade tapestries, they take off their flak jackets as the five women enter. Gul Jan's wife, shrouded in a black hijab, silences her cell phone after calls interrupt their introductions.
Sample kicks off the conversation by introducing herself in Pashto, "Zamanu Heather," and pulls out a typed list of questions about health care and the women's center. But the women aren't interested in any of that. What they really want to talk about is their safety. "When will Obama pull out the troops? If the Taliban make it into our compound, they'll slaughter us all," the son translates for his mother. The daughters say that militants terrorize homes at night."

On this we are in full agreement.

You know the worst part of that whole debacle. He was wanting to take medical benefits from wounded servicemembers in order to provide health benefits for illegal immigrants. WTF, how can anyone think that is fair. I did like the reply of one Vietnam Vet to Obama's proposal, "my employer didn't send me to Vietnam the U.S. Government did!"

Exactly!

I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a republican, I'm an AMERICAN! I owe allegience to no party, I do owe allegience to the Constitution of the United States, and to the government thereof, as long as the government abides by that document.

 

I too am neither Democrat or Republican, but I can be educated by people like you who take the time to write what they feel in this matter as you have presented point by point. I am not without faults as many may know who see my posts. Thank you USMC Price for this important post.

 

Thank you for the kind words. I've always thought you were a pretty good poster VG, I think you underestimate yourself. We all have faults because we're human.