I wasn't going to post anything as this venue can be a really strange
place to be. But after watching the morning news and watching the
vets speak about the day's ceremonies I felt like I needed to get
typing. So few understand the importance of Veterans Day and what it
really means.
I live (and grew up in) a military based city, and at one time we had
five (yes, five) military bases that honored our fair city with their
presence. This close up look at the system and its people no doubt
color my perception as I have now lived here for 40+ years.
Military service is considered to this day an honor here, and those
past their terribly confusing collegial years understand that the
sacrifice made by so many transcends petty politics and party
squabbling, and the current presidential policies. In fact, it is the
sacrifice of others that make all the squabbling, disagreement, etc.
possible.
There are plenty of vets here that have returned after training to
settle in, and we honor them and their predecessors all during the
year, not just once a year. Old timers have set up outreach programs
for younger soldiers, and it is never unusual to see soldiers in their
fatigues anywhere at anytime.
My next door neighbor received two purple hearts and a bronze star at
Monte Cassino. LOML's recently passed father received the DSC for his
actions at the same place, along with other accolades and personal
letters from commanding officers for his service and bravery on that
mountain.
One of the guys that subcontracts from me is a wounded door gunner
from a Huey that fights his spinal injury hard almost every day. A
fellow contractor that I partner with on occasion has long scars up
and down one arm and down his back from his time in Korea. In ten
years, he has never even hinted at what happened to him other than to
say he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The forklift driver
at the lumberyard I buy from has so many skin grafts on his arms and
chest he looks like a checkerboard from burns received in Desert
Shield. One of my closest friend's Dad was at Pearl Harbor, and was
there literally watching while the base was bombed. He witnessed the
bombing and sinking of the battleships, the destruction the bases and
the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians.
Military life is never far from us here, and I am glad of it. I think
it helps us remember that there is strife and conflict outside of our
normal mundane lives, and that those folks play(ed) a necessary and
profoundly important role in the security and safety of our country.
Soldiers have protected us and our way of life since the inception of
this country. They have also protected the lives and beliefs of
others, most of the time in far away places, out of touch with family
and loved ones, missing birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, and all
manner of other things that are taken for granted by many of us.
It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
your life for the service of others.
This is an important day, one to recognize the sacrifice for soldiers
past and present, and to preserve a sense of deeply felt appreciation
for those living and dead.
I didn't write this out to start yet another thread debating/attacking
the direction of The United States, its policies, it politicians, or
its way of life. I am sick of that. This was a commentary on my
personal beliefs that happen to be shared by many around me. Snide
remarks, witty retorts, and cute sound bites are NOT welcome.
And this day has nothing to do with that type of dialogue, other than
the fact it was made possible by a veteran. So I say if you see a vet
wearing his hat with the service pins on it, or a younger soldier in
his fatigues, make their day: shake their hand and thank them for a
job well done.
Robert
On Nov 12, 1:33 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
>It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
>your life for the service of others.
None of us should ever be allowed to question the reasons why a
soldier volunteers.
Sure there are some who just want a free education and hope that they
won't see combat.
Some have no other place to go.
Some just use it as a form of voluntary exile.
...those are just a few.
The bulk of them want to serve their country.
Those volunteers are already heroes in my book, without having done
any heroic deeds.
Those soldiers deserve all the help and respect in times of combat and
AFTER their tours are up.
The way so many people pay their respects for the troops speaks
volumes.
The way the vets are discarded after their usefulness is used
up...also speaks volumes.
The percentage of vets who become homeless...is a horrifying disgrace.
What does that say?
"Thanks for losing that leg, buddy...now you may rot."
On Nov 12, 10:43 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> The way the vets are discarded after their usefulness is >used up...also speaks volumes.
>
> The percentage of vets who become homeless...is a >horrifying disgrace.
> What does that say?
> "Thanks for losing that leg, buddy...now you may rot."
Well.... today... just for today in this NG... I wanted to concentrate
on all the fine and good things to do with our vets. I wanted to
concentrate on the appreciation I have of their sacrifice and
selflessness and the more positive aspects of their service.
Tomorrow I might be back on board wringing my hands with the bitter
ironies of how fucked up the system has gotten. I was hoping this
particular thread would be a positive affirmation to those that
served, kinda of an old fashioned pat on the back.
Robert
On Nov 12, 11:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Nov 12, 10:43 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The way the vets are discarded after their usefulness is >used up...also speaks volumes.
>
> > The percentage of vets who become homeless...is a >horrifying disgrace.
> > What does that say?
> > "Thanks for losing that leg, buddy...now you may rot."
>
> Well.... today... just for today in this NG... I wanted to concentrate
> on all the fine and good things to do with our vets. I wanted to
> concentrate on the appreciation I have of their sacrifice and
> selflessness and the more positive aspects of their service.
>
> Tomorrow I might be back on board wringing my hands with the bitter
> ironies of how fucked up the system has gotten. I was hoping this
> particular thread would be a positive affirmation to those that
> served, kinda of an old fashioned pat on the back.
>
I have a 90-year old Lancaster bomber pilot living directly across the
street from me.
32 missions. DFC. I thanked him personally. He was one of a very small
contingent at the local ceremonies.
When he returns from a random day away, his leaves are raked. He wakes
up, the snow is shovelled. On a few occassions, I got to his driveway
first, often, it is already done... the phanthom rakers and
shovellers...all in appreciation for this guy. He had a small fire in
a space-heater. All repairs done...no bills. (Wasn't me either.)
All very positive, Robert. Sometimes the thanking is in the doing...as
my aunt used to say
r
On Nov 13, 12:51 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
> >service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
> >your life for the service of others.
>
> Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
> reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
Maybe that's why the neocons are trying to avoid a draft. They'd
rather send recruiters out to the inner city schools and make promises
they have no intentions of keeping.
On Nov 13, 8:30 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sometimes the thanking is in the doing...as
> my aunt used to say.
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
Robert
On Nov 13, 10:36 am, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Nov 13, 12:51 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
> >> >service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
> >> >your life for the service of others.
>
> >> Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
> >> reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
>
> > Maybe that's why the neocons are trying to avoid a draft. They'd
> > rather send recruiters out to the inner city schools and make promises
> > they have no intentions of keeping.
>
> In case you hadn't given it a bit of thought, which I suspect to be the
> case, the draft makes everyone eligible, _except_ those category IV types we
> now recruit because there aren't enough capable CITIZENS to fill even our
> smaller pool.
>
Whoa, dude...we all know that the draft doesn't make everyone
eligible. Cheney got 5 deferrals. Bush got to play with planes (when
he showed up) at the Texas National Guard...shall I go on?
Or didn't you give that any thought?
On Nov 13, 11:34 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> How about Heinlein's system, where you don't get the vote until you
> complete a term of completely voluntary government service?
>
Unfortunately, too many people already don't care if they vote or not.
r
[email protected] wrote:
> I wasn't going to post anything as this venue can be a really strange
> place to be. But after watching the morning news and watching the
> vets speak about the day's ceremonies I felt like I needed to get
> typing. So few understand the importance of Veterans Day and what it
> really means.
>
... snip of some good stuff, only to preserve bandwidth
> And this day has nothing to do with that type of dialogue, other than
> the fact it was made possible by a veteran. So I say if you see a vet
> wearing his hat with the service pins on it, or a younger soldier in
> his fatigues, make their day: shake their hand and thank them for a
> job well done.
>
> Robert
Well stated and well-spoken. Thanks to all who have served, are serving
now, and those who will volunteer to serve in the future.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
<[email protected]> wrote:
>It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
>your life for the service of others.
Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
It is a point well worth considering.
Lew
"Dave In Houston" wrote:
> Why do you think it is that you don't see prisoners working in
road
> gangs and other public works projects? Because it takes the public
tax
> dollars away from contractors/big political contributors.
Come to California.
During recent fires, lots of inmate crews were used.
There are lots of ways to feed the political coffers and reward those
who feed them.
Lew
J. Clarke wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
... snip
>> drafted into. No exemptions for rich, powerful, or otherwise
>> "connected" people. 'Course, I'm not advocating ANY draft. Smacks
>> too much of involuntary servitude (read the 13th Amendment) to me.
>> I'm just saying, if it's fair for anyone, it's fair for everyone.
>
> How about Heinlein's system, where you don't get the vote until you
> complete a term of completely voluntary government service?
>
OK, how exactly is that completely voluntary? Sounds kind of on the order
of the "voluntary" income tax.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So what are you going to find for them all to do and what programs are
> you going to cancel to get the money to pay them? Or are you just
> going to raise taxes?
Where are we getting it now? Last I looked we've been spending
$12B/month that we don't have.
I read today that the U.S. has spent $1.5 trillion on Afghanistan and
Iraq.
Aren't the Chinese holding our note(s) ?
--
Dave in Houston
The enduring attraction of war is this: Even with its destruction and
carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose,
meaning, a reason for living... And war is an enticing elixir. It gives us
resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble. And those who have the least
meaning in their lives ... are all susceptible to war's appeal.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:51:18 -0800, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>>service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
>>your life for the service of others.
>
>Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
>reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
>
>It is a point well worth considering.
>
>Lew
>
>
We'd also have a much better equipped military, though I'm strongly against any
draft that resembled the one we had..
You have to consider that it's been maybe 30 years since we had a draft... which
means that we're hoping that skilled folks like doctors and lawyers will give up
well paying practices for 4 years to serve their country.. right..
I am, however in favor of "mac's draft plan", which would require all teens, of
both sexes, to spend 2 years in service, be it military, peace core, teaching
kids in high poverty areas, etc.. just some kind of public service..
Then, give them some sort of "GI BILL" for education, after they'd seem a bit of
life..
I went to school on the GI bill, and the first thing that you notice is that the
vets were older, more serious about learning and motivated... YMWV
To those who served... Thank you for your service and welcome home..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:53:05 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Renata wrote:
>>
>> I don't have a lot of time at the moment to respond but this little
>> point jumped way out off the monitor screen.
>>
>> 3/4 of the budget is on social programs? Where did you get that
>> little "fact"? A very quick search yielded, consistently, over
>> several sites, that about ~40% of the budget is on "social" programs.
>> Depending on where you look, defense is ~25% and debt service is about
>> ~10%.
>>
>For 2007:
>
>Social Security %21
>Medicare %14
>Unemployment & Welfare %13
>Medicaid et all %10
>
>Education %3
>
>Debt interest %9
>
>Defense %17
>
>Other* %13
>
>* includes general government, science & technology, community &
>regional development, agriculture, foreign affairs, environment &
>natural resources, Justice, Veterans Benefits, Transportation, etc.
>
>The first 4 or possibly 5 qualify as social programs and add up to about
>%60 of the budget. So I was wrong as were you. As well, since 4/9 of
>the debt (or 4% of the budget) is because of the trust funds (my
>original point), over 60% of the budget is composed of social program
>spending and interest on those programs debt.
>
>I also hope that one of those "gee whiz" missile defense systems isn't
>required to save your home town or any other city in the world, but if
>it is, I'll be glad we have it.
Education isn't welfare.
No one's arguing defense ain't necessary. But we got waaaay too much
"pork" in our defense budget.
Renata
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Nov 13, 12:51 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>> >service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
>> >your life for the service of others.
>>
>> Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
>> reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
>
>Maybe that's why the neocons are trying to avoid a draft. They'd
>rather send recruiters out to the inner city schools and make promises
>they have no intentions of keeping.
>
If the draft were re-instituted, "They" (Repubs or Dems, makes no
difference) Would simply use a bigger army to get into bigger wars,
and therefore speed the path to Empire. And make no mistake, just as
happened with the Roman Republic this nation was founded to replicate,
it IS headed down the path to Empire - and has been for nearly 70
years.
Yeesh - here I am yakkin politics instead of making sawdust.
-Kevin in Indy
To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snipped 4 BW>
Robert,
I emailed a pic this post made me think you'd like to the nailshooter
address.
Hope you get it.
Tom
--
Maker of Fine Sawdust and Thin Shavings
Take out the One to email me.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't see people who dodged the draft in Vietnam as being
> "unpatriotic". In fact in retrospect they made the right decision.
> The poor kids who got drafted and went did a Hell of a job that has
> never been properly appreciated and then the politicians threw it all
> away and gave the country to the people they had been fighting, so
> they died for no purpose at all.
>
What incredible disrespect and ignorance! Those who fought believed in
their duty if not the cause, their country if not its policy. They were
putting something above self. They should be commended.
Since the battle against crime, drugs, poverty ... etc can never be won,
should we glorify the criminals and druggies for their clever assessment?
We glorify the poor, even when it's because of their bad choices, which I
guess shows we've learned nothing about individual responsibility, only a
way to alibi, making it the fault of the system.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Roi%[email protected]...
> Renata wrote:
>>
>>
>> Education isn't welfare.
>
> It's a states responsibility.
>>
>> No one's arguing defense ain't necessary. But we got waaaay too much
>> "pork" in our defense budget.
> ...and no where else in that +60% ? Our kids and grandkids aren't going
> to distinguish between what you and I may argue is good or bad debt when
> the tab comes due and their paychecks vanish. My whole point about the
> trust fund situation is that it will be by far the largest component of
> the debt when that time comes. The solution to that problem isn't
> increasing SS tax rates and caps as that will only increase the debt
> further and faster as long as the trust fund money is "invested" in
> government debt.
"Provide for the common defense" is one of the designated purposes.
OTOH, if we forego the military, we'll have NO pork, since Muslims don't eat
it. FWIW.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 13, 12:51 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>> >service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
>> >your life for the service of others.
>>
>> Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
>> reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
>
> Maybe that's why the neocons are trying to avoid a draft. They'd
> rather send recruiters out to the inner city schools and make promises
> they have no intentions of keeping.
>
>
In case you hadn't given it a bit of thought, which I suspect to be the
case, the draft makes everyone eligible, _except_ those category IV types we
now recruit because there aren't enough capable CITIZENS to fill even our
smaller pool.
Without a draft, the danger is an army of compliant dolts led by an officer
corps who think of nothing but their personal ambition. In short, a Banana
Republic.
Dave In Houston wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> So what are you going to find for them all to do and what programs are
>> you going to cancel to get the money to pay them? Or are you just
>> going to raise taxes?
>
> Where are we getting it now? Last I looked we've been spending
> $12B/month that we don't have.
Three times that much is added to the national debt every month because
of the social security trust fund and the other 150 or so other federal
trust funds. In fact, even with a balanced budget, we add 300-400
billion to the national debt each year. It's the law - the federal
government takes the trust fund cash, counts it as federal income, but
doesn't count the IOU it puts in the trust fund against the current year
budget. Enron would be proud!
> I read today that the U.S. has spent $1.5 trillion on Afghanistan and
> Iraq.
We add three times the cost of the war to the debt each year because of
trust funds. 4 trillion of our 9 trillion national debt is because of
the above mentioned trust funds. It's estimated to reach over 40
trillion of unfunded debt before the payback has to start using higher
income taxes on future generations. But not to worry - the liberals are
going to fix it by increasing the SS tax rates thereby increasing the
debt even faster!
> Aren't the Chinese holding our note(s) ?
Not to worry - our kids and grandkids will have to repay them with an
estimated 85% tax rate, the increases ramping up in ten years or so when
SS current expenses exceed revenues.
Renata wrote:
>
> I don't have a lot of time at the moment to respond but this little
> point jumped way out off the monitor screen.
>
> 3/4 of the budget is on social programs? Where did you get that
> little "fact"? A very quick search yielded, consistently, over
> several sites, that about ~40% of the budget is on "social" programs.
> Depending on where you look, defense is ~25% and debt service is about
> ~10%.
>
For 2007:
Social Security %21
Medicare %14
Unemployment & Welfare %13
Medicaid et all %10
Education %3
Debt interest %9
Defense %17
Other* %13
* includes general government, science & technology, community &
regional development, agriculture, foreign affairs, environment &
natural resources, Justice, Veterans Benefits, Transportation, etc.
The first 4 or possibly 5 qualify as social programs and add up to about
%60 of the budget. So I was wrong as were you. As well, since 4/9 of
the debt (or 4% of the budget) is because of the trust funds (my
original point), over 60% of the budget is composed of social program
spending and interest on those programs debt.
I also hope that one of those "gee whiz" missile defense systems isn't
required to save your home town or any other city in the world, but if
it is, I'll be glad we have it.
Renata wrote:
>
>
> Education isn't welfare.
It's a states responsibility.
>
> No one's arguing defense ain't necessary. But we got waaaay too much
> "pork" in our defense budget.
>
...and no where else in that +60% ? Our kids and grandkids aren't going
to distinguish between what you and I may argue is good or bad debt when
the tab comes due and their paychecks vanish. My whole point about the
trust fund situation is that it will be by far the largest component of
the debt when that time comes. The solution to that problem isn't
increasing SS tax rates and caps as that will only increase the debt
further and faster as long as the trust fund money is "invested" in
government debt.
"Max" wrote
> I live in El Paso and we have Fort Bliss as neighbors. I have many
military
> friends who have come and gone and many who have retired here.
> It was great news to me when I heard that BRAC (Base Realignment and
> Closure) program would bring the 1st Cavalry Division here to Ft. Bliss.
> I served with the 1st Cav in Korea ('50 - '51)
Ahhh yes, good old Ft Bliss ...intro was being yanked from the bed of a
lovely, warm young wife at 5AM to travel by bus from College Station to the
induction station in Houston, then waking up in basic training, in Fort
Bliss, the very next morning ... can you spell culture s h o c k?
Then back again in '68 as a shavetail 2nd looey for a memorable year before
going to the inevitable South China Sea land of enchantment.
A summer of jack rabbit hunting with a pistol out of the bed of a pickup,
dove hunting further down south on the Rio Grande where half the birds fell
into Mexico and you didn't even have to get your feet wet to retrieve them,
and the El Paso Sun Kings! Watching baseball, the way it was meant to be,
outdoors, on a clear summer evening on that desert floor, and with the
Franklin Mountain's as a backdrop, just before drugs, attitude and the TV
culture ruined the game forever.
A buck for a ticket on the first base line with a military, ID and 50 cents
for cold beer.
Surely things of the past ... but what memories (as my achilles tendons
still remind me, thanks to that weekly 7 mile march/double time to the rifle
range and back, in desert SAND!)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/11/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
George wrote:
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> On Nov 13, 12:51 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>>> >service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
>>> >your life for the service of others.
>>>
>>> Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
>>> reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
>>
>>
>> Maybe that's why the neocons are trying to avoid a draft. They'd
>> rather send recruiters out to the inner city schools and make promises
>> they have no intentions of keeping.
>>
>>
>
> In case you hadn't given it a bit of thought, which I suspect to be the
> case, the draft makes everyone eligible, _except_ those category IV
> types we now recruit because there aren't enough capable CITIZENS to
> fill even our smaller pool.
>
> Without a draft, the danger is an army of compliant dolts led by an
> officer corps who think of nothing but their personal ambition. In
> short, a Banana Republic.
If we ever resume the draft, I think it should be universal. Those who don't
serve in the military for whatever reason should be drafted for public works
projects (like depression era Civilian Conservation Corps), or for helping
others less fortunate (like Job Corps, Habitat for Humanity, etc.). No
exceptions for anything. No conscientious objectors. No hardship exceptions.
No exceptions for physically impaired (OK, maybe for the mentally impaired). No
exceptions for education. Maybe deferments for some fields, if when they
graduate they are required to use their education in the service they're drafted
into. No exemptions for rich, powerful, or otherwise "connected" people.
'Course, I'm not advocating ANY draft. Smacks too much of involuntary servitude
(read the 13th Amendment) to me. I'm just saying, if it's fair for anyone, it's
fair for everyone.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>>service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
>>your life for the service of others.
>
> Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
> reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
>
> It is a point well worth considering.
>
> Lew
>
>
I agree with you.
I really do not fault the younger kids today I think they are more patriotic
then the older 60's retards.
It's a shame that these retards are trying to impose their beliefs and ways
they think this country should be governed today. Half of them have fried
brains. The kids that cause the problems today with drugs etc. in my
opinion are probably the children of these people. Their philosophy in those
days -- if it feels good do it and they are raising their kids that are
causing problems the same way. I feel you reap what you sow. The ones that
dodged the draft are people I would not want in my outfit to begin with.
When the going got tough they would be the first ones to take off.
mac davis wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:34:24 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>How about Heinlein's system, where you don't get the vote until you
>>complete a term of completely voluntary government service?
>>
What does "completely voluntarily" mean? In 1972 I volunteered for the National
Guard and spent 6 years in it. Would the fact that the USA had an active draft
and my draft number was 19 disqualify me from voting?
I think candidates should at least be required to pass a test on the
Constitution, particularly individual rights, and the distribution of state vs.
federal powers, and that the results of the tests should be included in their
campaign literature.
>
> Judging by the folks in our old neighborhood that didn't know what our "I Voted"
> stickers were, I don't think it would work.
>
It'd work, if you could make it legal. But that would require a constitutional
amendment that will never happen. As it is, we should consider ourselves lucky
that along with free health care, welfare, etc. that the powers that be don't
give illegal aliens the vote too.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:57:03 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>You're going to have about 10 million people in your service program,
>all of whom are going to have to be paid, fed, housed, etc while
>they're doing whatever. This is about 7 times the size of the US
>active duty military, so one can expect the pay alone to be about 7
>times as great.
Who pays them now?
Is the peace Corp paying their folks.. or the Red Cross Volunteers?
What's the going rate for the folks that "adopt a freeway"?
We're talking community service, not VIP jobs..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
[email protected] wrote:
> I wasn't going to post anything as this venue can be a really strange
> place to be. But after watching the morning news and watching the
> vets speak about the day's ceremonies I felt like I needed to get
> typing. So few understand the importance of Veterans Day and what it
> really means.
>
> I live (and grew up in) a military based city, and at one time we had
> five (yes, five) military bases that honored our fair city with their
> presence. This close up look at the system and its people no doubt
> color my perception as I have now lived here for 40+ years.
>
> Military service is considered to this day an honor here, and those
> past their terribly confusing collegial years understand that the
> sacrifice made by so many transcends petty politics and party
> squabbling, and the current presidential policies. In fact, it is the
> sacrifice of others that make all the squabbling, disagreement, etc.
> possible.
>
> There are plenty of vets here that have returned after training to
> settle in, and we honor them and their predecessors all during the
> year, not just once a year. Old timers have set up outreach programs
> for younger soldiers, and it is never unusual to see soldiers in their
> fatigues anywhere at anytime.
>
> My next door neighbor received two purple hearts and a bronze star at
> Monte Cassino. LOML's recently passed father received the DSC for his
> actions at the same place, along with other accolades and personal
> letters from commanding officers for his service and bravery on that
> mountain.
>
> One of the guys that subcontracts from me is a wounded door gunner
> from a Huey that fights his spinal injury hard almost every day. A
> fellow contractor that I partner with on occasion has long scars up
> and down one arm and down his back from his time in Korea. In ten
> years, he has never even hinted at what happened to him other than to
> say he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The forklift driver
> at the lumberyard I buy from has so many skin grafts on his arms and
> chest he looks like a checkerboard from burns received in Desert
> Shield. One of my closest friend's Dad was at Pearl Harbor, and was
> there literally watching while the base was bombed. He witnessed the
> bombing and sinking of the battleships, the destruction the bases and
> the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians.
>
> Military life is never far from us here, and I am glad of it. I think
> it helps us remember that there is strife and conflict outside of our
> normal mundane lives, and that those folks play(ed) a necessary and
> profoundly important role in the security and safety of our country.
> Soldiers have protected us and our way of life since the inception of
> this country. They have also protected the lives and beliefs of
> others, most of the time in far away places, out of touch with family
> and loved ones, missing birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, and all
> manner of other things that are taken for granted by many of us.
>
> It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
> service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
> your life for the service of others.
>
> This is an important day, one to recognize the sacrifice for soldiers
> past and present, and to preserve a sense of deeply felt appreciation
> for those living and dead.
>
> I didn't write this out to start yet another thread debating/attacking
> the direction of The United States, its policies, it politicians, or
> its way of life. I am sick of that. This was a commentary on my
> personal beliefs that happen to be shared by many around me. Snide
> remarks, witty retorts, and cute sound bites are NOT welcome.
>
> And this day has nothing to do with that type of dialogue, other than
> the fact it was made possible by a veteran. So I say if you see a vet
> wearing his hat with the service pins on it, or a younger soldier in
> his fatigues, make their day: shake their hand and thank them for a
> job well done.
<snip of a wonderful post>
>
> Robert
>
Amen to all of what you said, Robert.
We're likely of an age but from
different countries. I'm in Canada.
As a teen, I grew up across the river
from Port Huron MI, and watched what was
happening in Vietnam and vowed that I'd
never be pulled into a senseless
conflict such as that. As opposed to all
those other conflicts that make sense.
(BTW, no politics in this post either.
There are no criticisms here)
That period coloured my views on
military to the point where I had some
pretty unrealistic ideas about what
military meant and what it stood for.
i.e. All Military = bad. As I said, it
was pretty unrealistic.
I share the view that what these people
are doing for us to protect our way of
life is nothing short of heroic. Even
the ones that aren't the the classic
"heroes". Hell, they all are. Because of
them, we have the freedom to say pretty
much what we want, go where we please
and live a relatively strife-free life.
For that I am extremely grateful.
People have lost limbs, the means to
make a decent living, and their lives
simply to uphold that freedom for us.
It's an unbelievably sobering thought.
I have no real concept of the horrors
they have gone through, but I appreciate
the sacrifices they have made for us.
--
Tanus
This is not really a sig.
http://users.compzone.ca/george/shop/
Robatoy wrote:
> On Nov 12, 1:33 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> [snipped for brevity]
>
>> It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>> service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to
>> volunteer
>> your life for the service of others.
>
> None of us should ever be allowed to question the reasons why a
> soldier volunteers.
> Sure there are some who just want a free education and hope that
> they
> won't see combat.
> Some have no other place to go.
> Some just use it as a form of voluntary exile.
> ...those are just a few.
>
> The bulk of them want to serve their country.
> Those volunteers are already heroes in my book, without having done
> any heroic deeds.
> Those soldiers deserve all the help and respect in times of combat
> and
> AFTER their tours are up.
>
> The way so many people pay their respects for the troops speaks
> volumes.
> The way the vets are discarded after their usefulness is used
> up...also speaks volumes.
>
> The percentage of vets who become homeless...is a horrifying
> disgrace.
> What does that say?
> "Thanks for losing that leg, buddy...now you may rot."
http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/p1/lastlightbrigade.html
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Dave wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>>> service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to
>>> volunteer your life for the service of others.
>>
>> Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
>> reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
>>
>> It is a point well worth considering.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
> I agree with you.
>
> I really do not fault the younger kids today I think they are more
> patriotic then the older 60's retards.
> It's a shame that these retards are trying to impose their beliefs
> and ways they think this country should be governed today. Half of
> them have fried brains. The kids that cause the problems today with
> drugs etc. in my opinion are probably the children of these people.
> Their philosophy in those days -- if it feels good do it and they
> are
> raising their kids that are causing problems the same way. I feel
> you
> reap what you sow. The ones that dodged the draft are people I would
> not want in my outfit to begin with. When the going got tough they
> would be the first ones to take off.
I don't see people who dodged the draft in Vietnam as being
"unpatriotic". In fact in retrospect they made the right decision.
The poor kids who got drafted and went did a Hell of a job that has
never been properly appreciated and then the politicians threw it all
away and gave the country to the people they had been fighting, so
they died for no purpose at all.
Do you really trust the politicians not to do the same thing again? I
mean look at the crap that's being pulled today--it should be "General
Petraeus, what do you need? OK, go get it." not "General Petraeus,
we're going to nail your ass to a cross if you don't achieve a miracle
with the pittance we let you have".
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Just Wondering wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>>
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> On Nov 13, 12:51 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>>>>> service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to
>>>>> volunteer your life for the service of others.
>>>>
>>>> Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
>>>> reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe that's why the neocons are trying to avoid a draft. They'd
>>> rather send recruiters out to the inner city schools and make
>>> promises they have no intentions of keeping.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In case you hadn't given it a bit of thought, which I suspect to be
>> the case, the draft makes everyone eligible, _except_ those
>> category
>> IV types we now recruit because there aren't enough capable
>> CITIZENS
>> to fill even our smaller pool.
>>
>> Without a draft, the danger is an army of compliant dolts led by an
>> officer corps who think of nothing but their personal ambition. In
>> short, a Banana Republic.
>
>
> If we ever resume the draft, I think it should be universal. Those
> who don't serve in the military for whatever reason should be
> drafted
> for public works projects (like depression era Civilian Conservation
> Corps), or for helping others less fortunate (like Job Corps,
> Habitat
> for Humanity, etc.). No exceptions for anything. No conscientious
> objectors. No hardship exceptions. No exceptions for physically
> impaired (OK, maybe for the mentally impaired). No exceptions for
> education. Maybe deferments for some fields, if when they graduate
> they are required to use their education in the service they're
> drafted into. No exemptions for rich, powerful, or otherwise
> "connected" people. 'Course, I'm not advocating ANY draft. Smacks
> too much of involuntary servitude (read the 13th Amendment) to me.
> I'm just saying, if it's fair for anyone, it's fair for everyone.
How about Heinlein's system, where you don't get the vote until you
complete a term of completely voluntary government service?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
mac davis wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:51:18 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>>> service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to
>>> volunteer your life for the service of others.
>>
>> Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
>> reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
>>
>> It is a point well worth considering.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
> We'd also have a much better equipped military, though I'm strongly
> against any draft that resembled the one we had..
>
> You have to consider that it's been maybe 30 years since we had a
> draft... which means that we're hoping that skilled folks like
> doctors and lawyers will give up well paying practices for 4 years
> to
> serve their country.. right..
Is there in fact a shortage of physicians in the military? As for
lawyers, the fewer of them second-guessing the guys on the sharp end
the better.
> I am, however in favor of "mac's draft plan", which would require
> all
> teens, of both sexes, to spend 2 years in service, be it military,
> peace core, teaching kids in high poverty areas, etc.. just some
> kind
> of public service..
So what are you going to find for them all to do and what programs are
you going to cancel to get the money to pay them? Or are you just
going to raise taxes?
> Then, give them some sort of "GI BILL" for education, after they'd
> seem a bit of life..
Again where does the money come from?
> I went to school on the GI bill, and the first thing that you notice
> is that the vets were older, more serious about learning and
> motivated... YMWV
>
> To those who served... Thank you for your service and welcome home..
Amen.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
mac davis wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:15:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I don't see people who dodged the draft in Vietnam as being
>> "unpatriotic". In fact in retrospect they made the right decision.
>> The poor kids who got drafted and went did a Hell of a job that has
>> never been properly appreciated and then the politicians threw it
>> all
>> away and gave the country to the people they had been fighting, so
>> they died for no purpose at all.
>
> I wasn't planning to do much replying, but So many good points
> here...
>
> I was drafted and went to Nam.. I wasn't brave, or patriotic, or
> noble.. just too unaware of word events and passive to think of
> alternatives...
>
> I have no bad feelings for those who refused the draft or went to
> another country to avoid it... we all have to make choices and live
> with them..
>
> However, I do have bad feelings about the people that didn't have to
> make choices but made careers out of protesting....
> IMO, it took guts to give up a life in the States and go to Canada
> or
> wherever.. but no guys at all to be safe and warm and call those who
> did make choices cowards or baby killers..
>
> It's been almost 40 years and I still won't watch anything with Jane
> Fonda in it.. She should have been shot for treason..
Don't get me started on Jane.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Nov 13, 11:34 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> How about Heinlein's system, where you don't get the vote until you
>> complete a term of completely voluntary government service?
>>
> Unfortunately, too many people already don't care if they vote or
> not.
And the ones who don't care wouldn't have any right to complain when
they didn't like what the government did.
People don't vote these days because the feel that no matter who they
vote for it's not going to make their lives better. And there's merit
to that view--nobody is running on the platform of cutting government
services back to the 1907 level for example and short of doing that
we're just going to pay more taxes and have more bureaucrats on our
backs no matter who we vote for.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
dpb wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> ...
>> ...nobody is running on the platform of cutting government
>> services back to the 1907 level ...
>
> And if they were to do so, they would get about 0.1% of the vote...
You might be surprised. Everybody doesn't want the huge government we
have now.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Digger wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:36:12 GMT, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Nov 13, 12:51 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>>>>> service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to
>>>>> volunteer your life for the service of others.
>>>>
>>>> Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
>>>> reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
>>>
>>> Maybe that's why the neocons are trying to avoid a draft. They'd
>>> rather send recruiters out to the inner city schools and make
>>> promises they have no intentions of keeping.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In case you hadn't given it a bit of thought, which I suspect to be
>> the case, the draft makes everyone eligible, _except_ those
>> category
>> IV types we now recruit because there aren't enough capable
>> CITIZENS
>> to fill even our smaller pool.
>>
>> Without a draft, the danger is an army of compliant dolts led by an
>> officer corps who think of nothing but their personal ambition. In
>> short, a Banana Republic.
>
> Amen brother! And put term limits on these ner do well rich boys in
> congress so we might have a hope of functioning goverment down the
> road. (instead of a playpen for people that have never lived in a
> real
> world)
If I were serving right now I'd be very angry with the
characterization of the current makeup of the US armed forces as
"category IV types who would not be eligible for the draft". In case
you haven't noticed, those "category IV types" are doing a Hell of a
job--they've carried out every mission they've been assigned with
surprisingly low losses and collateral damage. They are, in fact,
doing far better in both regards than the draftees did in Viet Nam.
Further, since officers other than medical doctors are not in general
draftees, I don't see how a draft would have a significant effect on
the composition of the officer corps.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>> ...
>>> ...nobody is running on the platform of cutting government
>>> services back to the 1907 level ...
>> And if they were to do so, they would get about 0.1% of the vote...
>
> You might be surprised. Everybody doesn't want the huge government we
> have now.
"Everybody", yes. '07 level, and enough to get elected, not so much...
--
Renata wrote:
...
> 3/4 of the budget is on social programs? Where did you get that
> little "fact"? A very quick search yielded, consistently, over
> several sites, that about ~40% of the budget is on "social" programs.
...
I don't have time to look at all, but it would depend greatly on how the
breakdowns are calculated imo. Under some definitions that aren't too
greatly stretched, I could see it, particularly if future obligations of
the growth of entitlements implies is included.
As one simple example that I do happen to know something about -- where
is the Dept of Ag budget counted? While folks like to complain about
direct subsidies (and there are some areas that need reform, certainly),
over 60% is for things like food stamps, school food programs, etc., and
only 14% is actually direct ag-producer programs such as drought
production loss.
Are those social services programs accounted for in your 40% numbers as
simply one question. The budget is so large and convoluted, it's like
the IRS code -- essentially unfathomable.
--
mac davis wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:47:06 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>> We'd also have a much better equipped military, though I'm
>>> strongly
>>> against any draft that resembled the one we had..
>>>
>>> You have to consider that it's been maybe 30 years since we had a
>>> draft... which means that we're hoping that skilled folks like
>>> doctors and lawyers will give up well paying practices for 4 years
>>> to
>>> serve their country.. right..
>>
>> Is there in fact a shortage of physicians in the military? As for
>> lawyers, the fewer of them second-guessing the guys on the sharp
>> end
>> the better.
>
> YES!
> Not only is the medical arm understaffed, if it wasn't for the
> reservists we would have mostly foreign nationals as doctors..
> They do as well as they can and are eligible for citizenship after
> their term of service, but it's a different medical core than we had
> when there was a draft..
>>
>>> I am, however in favor of "mac's draft plan", which would require
>>> all
>>> teens, of both sexes, to spend 2 years in service, be it military,
>>> peace core, teaching kids in high poverty areas, etc.. just some
>>> kind
>>> of public service..
>>
>> So what are you going to find for them all to do and what programs
>> are you going to cancel to get the money to pay them? Or are you
>> just going to raise taxes?
>
> Might save the cost of unemployment, welfare, education grants,
> etc...
> All of the programs, such as the Peace Corp, Red Cross, etc. are in
> place right now..
You're going to have about 10 million people in your service program,
all of whom are going to have to be paid, fed, housed, etc while
they're doing whatever. This is about 7 times the size of the US
active duty military, so one can expect the pay alone to be about 7
times as great.
About 1 million teenagers are unemployed and seeking employment--most
of them are not seeking or collecting unemployment benefits, your
program would increase costs by paying them government money that they
are not now receiving. I'm not really clear on how it would cause the
other 6 million to either become employed, stop seeking employment, or
stop collecting whatever benefits they were collecting.
Further, few teenagers are collecting any significant amount of
Welfare other than the ones who have children--what are you going to
do with their kids while they are off serving?
>>> Then, give them some sort of "GI BILL" for education, after they'd
>>> seem a bit of life..
>>
>> Again where does the money come from?
>
> The same place grants and student loans come from.. no change..
Except that you're at least doubling the number of recipients each
year and removing the requirement that the funds be repaid.
But basically it sounds like you're just proposing another "tax and
spend" or "borrow and spend" boondoggle based on no evidence that it's
actually going to cut costs in the long term.
>>> I went to school on the GI bill, and the first thing that you
>>> notice
>>> is that the vets were older, more serious about learning and
>>> motivated... YMWV
>>>
>>> To those who served... Thank you for your service and welcome
>>> home..
>>
>> Amen.
>>
>>
>> --
>
>
> mac
>
> Please remove splinters before emailing
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Just Wondering wrote:
> mac davis wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:34:24 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> How about Heinlein's system, where you don't get the vote until
>>> you
>>> complete a term of completely voluntary government service?
>>>
>
> What does "completely voluntarily" mean? In 1972 I volunteered for
> the National
> Guard and spent 6 years in it. Would the fact that the USA had an
> active draft
> and my draft number was 19 disqualify me from voting?
If there is a draft then government service is not "completely
voluntary" and thus you are talking about a system different from the
one proposed.
> I think candidates should at least be required to pass a test on the
> Constitution, particularly individual rights, and the distribution
> of
> state vs.
> federal powers, and that the results of the tests should be included
> in their
> campaign literature.
Too simple. They should be required to recite the US Code and the
Code of Federal Regulations verbatim from memory and to carry on their
persons at all times the complete texts of both printed in 12 point
type on 12 pound paper. After all, if they don' really know the
current laws then how do they know that the ones they are proposing
will change anything? Of course that would leave us without a
legislature since nobody is going to live long enough to memorize the
whole thing and if they could they wouldn't be able to lift it.
>> Judging by the folks in our old neighborhood that didn't know what
>> our "I Voted" stickers were, I don't think it would work.
>>
>
> It'd work, if you could make it legal. But that would require a
> constitutional
> amendment that will never happen. As it is, we should consider
> ourselves lucky
> that along with free health care, welfare, etc. that the powers that
> be don't
> give illegal aliens the vote too.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Renata wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:53:05 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Renata wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't have a lot of time at the moment to respond but this
>>> little
>>> point jumped way out off the monitor screen.
>>>
>>> 3/4 of the budget is on social programs? Where did you get that
>>> little "fact"? A very quick search yielded, consistently, over
>>> several sites, that about ~40% of the budget is on "social"
>>> programs. Depending on where you look, defense is ~25% and debt
>>> service is about ~10%.
>>>
>> For 2007:
>>
>> Social Security %21
>> Medicare %14
>> Unemployment & Welfare %13
>> Medicaid et all %10
>>
>> Education %3
>>
>> Debt interest %9
>>
>> Defense %17
>>
>> Other* %13
>>
>> * includes general government, science & technology, community &
>> regional development, agriculture, foreign affairs, environment &
>> natural resources, Justice, Veterans Benefits, Transportation, etc.
>>
>> The first 4 or possibly 5 qualify as social programs and add up to
>> about %60 of the budget. So I was wrong as were you. As well,
>> since 4/9 of the debt (or 4% of the budget) is because of the trust
>> funds (my original point), over 60% of the budget is composed of
>> social program spending and interest on those programs debt.
>>
>> I also hope that one of those "gee whiz" missile defense systems
>> isn't required to save your home town or any other city in the
>> world, but if it is, I'll be glad we have it.
>
> Education isn't welfare.
>
> No one's arguing defense ain't necessary. But we got waaaay too
> much
> "pork" in our defense budget.
Likely got it in the social services budget as well. Pork abounds--if
you can find a system to do away with it other than appointing a king
please present it--it's inherent in any democratic system that people
are going to want projects that benefit them.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Renata wrote:
>>
>>
>> Education isn't welfare.
>
> It's a states responsibility.
>>
>> No one's arguing defense ain't necessary. But we got waaaay too much
>> "pork" in our defense budget.
> ...and no where else in that +60% ? ...
Per example...the recent WRDA (Water Resources) bill. Went from ~$5B
request from Army Corps of Engineers for improvements on inland
waterways to do things such as enlarge outdated locks to accommodate
current-day barges, maintenance, etc.; a useful and needed set of work
that has been need for 20 years. Went to $10, then $12B in House, about
$15B in Senate (or vice versa, I forget which was the larger otomh, but
that's immaterial). Went to conference and came out at something around
$22B. Ended up being first (and so far, only) bill the Dem's have been
able to override a veto...
I'm an ag producer so cost-effective barge facilities to ship grain from
our midwest terminals to Gulf ports is a key item in our economic
competitiveness for exports, but still...this is madness.
--
J. Clarke wrote:
> Renata wrote:
...
>> No one's arguing defense ain't necessary. But we got waaaay too
>> much "pork" in our defense budget.
>
> Likely got it in the social services budget as well. Pork abounds--if
> you can find a system to do away with it other than appointing a king
> please present it--it's inherent in any democratic system that people
> are going to want projects that benefit them.
It's even more inherent in a monarchy or dictatorial system where the
"ins" have absolute control. There is at least a modicum of control in
a democratic/representative government, albeit diluted as the size of
the population grows...
--
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/p1/lastlightbrigade.html
>
Or, more to the point.
"it's Tommy this and Tommy that, and 'chuck 'im out, the brute.'
But it's 'Savior of his Country,' When the guns begin to shoot."
That old imperialist/racist Kipling.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:36:49 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>If I were serving right now I'd be very angry with the
>characterization of the current makeup of the US armed forces as
>"category IV types who would not be eligible for the draft". In case
>you haven't noticed, those "category IV types" are doing a Hell of a
>job--they've carried out every mission they've been assigned with
>surprisingly low losses and collateral damage. They are, in fact,
>doing far better in both regards than the draftees did in Viet Nam.
>Further, since officers other than medical doctors are not in general
>draftees, I don't see how a draft would have a significant effect on
>the composition of the officer corps.
>
Thank you...
Our son has been in for almost 7 years and is up for promotion to E-7... mostly
because of his motivation, learning skills and education..
As to the draft... I served with a lot of professional folks that were drafted
and made very good officer material.. as opposed to us drafted as cannon
fodder..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:01:01 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Dave In Houston wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> So what are you going to find for them all to do and what programs are
>>> you going to cancel to get the money to pay them? Or are you just
>>> going to raise taxes?
>>
>> Where are we getting it now? Last I looked we've been spending
>> $12B/month that we don't have.
>
>Three times that much is added to the national debt every month because
>of the social security trust fund and the other 150 or so other federal
>trust funds. In fact, even with a balanced budget, we add 300-400
>billion to the national debt each year. It's the law - the federal
>government takes the trust fund cash, counts it as federal income, but
>doesn't count the IOU it puts in the trust fund against the current year
>budget. Enron would be proud!
>
>> I read today that the U.S. has spent $1.5 trillion on Afghanistan and
>> Iraq.
>
>We add three times the cost of the war to the debt each year because of
>trust funds. 4 trillion of our 9 trillion national debt is because of
>the above mentioned trust funds. It's estimated to reach over 40
>trillion of unfunded debt before the payback has to start using higher
>income taxes on future generations. But not to worry - the liberals are
>going to fix it by increasing the SS tax rates thereby increasing the
>debt even faster!
>
>> Aren't the Chinese holding our note(s) ?
>
>Not to worry - our kids and grandkids will have to repay them with an
>estimated 85% tax rate, the increases ramping up in ten years or so when
>SS current expenses exceed revenues.
An "alternate" perspective:
SS takes in more than it pays out.
The government then "borrows" that excess to pay for its wars and the
$700B (this year) military budget (among more minor expenses). Oh,
and let's not forget those tax cuts. Did you enjoy your couple
hundred? Use it to put gas in the car a for couple/three weeks?
This excess in the SS "trust" has increased from ~20B/yr in Clinton's
time to ~$200+B/yr in the early years of W.
The government DOES NOT want to pay those "borrowed" funds back.
After all, it ain't very good at living within its means. BTW, ole W
has said it ain't gonna happen.
Unfortunately, the time is approaching where SS won't be taking in an
excess (for a LIMITED period of time) and the government will not be
able to "borrow" from the "trust", and should, indeed, have to pay it
back.
Again - the government does not want to do this. So it tells y'all
how 'broke' SS is.
The SS tax was increased during Reagan's time, as a long term fix for
SS (to, like, 2070 or some such). A tax on the backs of the middle
class. It fixed it all right. For tax cuts (etc.). (did you know
hedge fund managers pay only 15% on their incomes? did you know that
the ultra rich have had their taxes cut ~50% in W's reign? Sure hope
you're in one of those groups).
The corporate media machine blathers on and on about how "broke" SS is
and pretty soon, told enough times, it's believed. [who said that?]
I realize we all have VERY busy lives, maybe even working a second (or
third) job now that food and fuel costs have skyrocketed, are gonna
affect the cost of just about every necessity, and no longer can tap
our home equity ('cause that's tanking as well) to defray (well,
postpone) those costs (much less buy that new Bimmer (Louis Vuiton and
BMW stocks fell sharply last week in anticipation of much slower sales
in the USA)). But perhaps you could take a short moment to do a teeny
bit of research before regurgitating the corporate media's talking
points. I mean, internet is likely an easily accessible source, no?
BTW, I don't understand why you think it's all right to spend $ on
killing people and enriching "death star" developers but not on (for
example) taking care of the country's infrastructure (of various
sorts) or it's people (not welfare!, BTW).
So, to summarize.
SS takes in plenty of $ to handle it's obligations, but the
government's been "borrowing" that $ 'cause there's been a wee bit
extra. The time's a commin' where the note comes due, but the ole guv
ain't inclined to pay it back, 'cause it sorta can't handle it's
"household" finances as is and sure don't have any extra to be payin'
back no debt for sumtin' as stupid as an old people's fall back.
Renata
[who will strenuously attempt to refrain from additional comment]
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I wasn't going to post anything as this venue can be a really strange
> place to be. But after watching the morning news and watching the
> vets speak about the day's ceremonies I felt like I needed to get
> typing. So few understand the importance of Veterans Day and what it
> really means.
>
> I live (and grew up in) a military based city, and at one time we had
> five (yes, five) military bases that honored our fair city with their
> presence. This close up look at the system and its people no doubt
> color my perception as I have now lived here for 40+ years.
>
> Military service is considered to this day an honor here, and those
> past their terribly confusing collegial years understand that the
> sacrifice made by so many transcends petty politics and party
> squabbling, and the current presidential policies. In fact, it is the
> sacrifice of others that make all the squabbling, disagreement, etc.
> possible.
>
> There are plenty of vets here that have returned after training to
> settle in, and we honor them and their predecessors all during the
> year, not just once a year. Old timers have set up outreach programs
> for younger soldiers, and it is never unusual to see soldiers in their
> fatigues anywhere at anytime.
>
> My next door neighbor received two purple hearts and a bronze star at
> Monte Cassino. LOML's recently passed father received the DSC for his
> actions at the same place, along with other accolades and personal
> letters from commanding officers for his service and bravery on that
> mountain.
>
> One of the guys that subcontracts from me is a wounded door gunner
> from a Huey that fights his spinal injury hard almost every day. A
> fellow contractor that I partner with on occasion has long scars up
> and down one arm and down his back from his time in Korea. In ten
> years, he has never even hinted at what happened to him other than to
> say he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The forklift driver
> at the lumberyard I buy from has so many skin grafts on his arms and
> chest he looks like a checkerboard from burns received in Desert
> Shield. One of my closest friend's Dad was at Pearl Harbor, and was
> there literally watching while the base was bombed. He witnessed the
> bombing and sinking of the battleships, the destruction the bases and
> the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians.
>
> Military life is never far from us here, and I am glad of it. I think
> it helps us remember that there is strife and conflict outside of our
> normal mundane lives, and that those folks play(ed) a necessary and
> profoundly important role in the security and safety of our country.
> Soldiers have protected us and our way of life since the inception of
> this country. They have also protected the lives and beliefs of
> others, most of the time in far away places, out of touch with family
> and loved ones, missing birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, and all
> manner of other things that are taken for granted by many of us.
>
> It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
> service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
> your life for the service of others.
>
> This is an important day, one to recognize the sacrifice for soldiers
> past and present, and to preserve a sense of deeply felt appreciation
> for those living and dead.
>
> I didn't write this out to start yet another thread debating/attacking
> the direction of The United States, its policies, it politicians, or
> its way of life. I am sick of that. This was a commentary on my
> personal beliefs that happen to be shared by many around me. Snide
> remarks, witty retorts, and cute sound bites are NOT welcome.
>
> And this day has nothing to do with that type of dialogue, other than
> the fact it was made possible by a veteran. So I say if you see a vet
> wearing his hat with the service pins on it, or a younger soldier in
> his fatigues, make their day: shake their hand and thank them for a
> job well done.
>
> Robert
I didn't snip anything, Robert, because it won't hurt anyone to read it
again.
I live in El Paso and we have Fort Bliss as neighbors. I have many military
friends who have come and gone and many who have retired here.
It was great news to me when I heard that BRAC (Base Realignment and
Closure) program would bring the 1st Cavalry Division here to Ft. Bliss.
I served with the 1st Cav in Korea ('50 - '51)
Thank You for your kind words.
Max
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:15:16 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I don't see people who dodged the draft in Vietnam as being
>"unpatriotic". In fact in retrospect they made the right decision.
>The poor kids who got drafted and went did a Hell of a job that has
>never been properly appreciated and then the politicians threw it all
>away and gave the country to the people they had been fighting, so
>they died for no purpose at all.
I wasn't planning to do much replying, but So many good points here...
I was drafted and went to Nam.. I wasn't brave, or patriotic, or noble.. just
too unaware of word events and passive to think of alternatives...
I have no bad feelings for those who refused the draft or went to another
country to avoid it... we all have to make choices and live with them..
However, I do have bad feelings about the people that didn't have to make
choices but made careers out of protesting....
IMO, it took guts to give up a life in the States and go to Canada or wherever..
but no guys at all to be safe and warm and call those who did make choices
cowards or baby killers..
It's been almost 40 years and I still won't watch anything with Jane Fonda in
it.. She should have been shot for treason..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:00:42 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Renata wrote:
>>
>> So, to summarize.
>> SS takes in plenty of $ to handle it's obligations, but the
>> government's been "borrowing" that $ 'cause there's been a wee bit
>> extra. The time's a commin' where the note comes due, but the ole guv
>> ain't inclined to pay it back, 'cause it sorta can't handle it's
>> "household" finances as is and sure don't have any extra to be payin'
>> back no debt for sumtin' as stupid as an old people's fall back.
>>
>The trust fund fiasco has operated the way it does since inception by
>FDR. The law as written then mandated that the fund(s) buy government
>securities with all excess contributions. There is no plundering or
>looting of the funds under the law, but the law results in the same.
>
>The cash the government receives for the trust fund IOUs goes into the
>general fund and is used for all sorts of things - non of which are
>related to the fund(s). Since three fourhts of the federal budget is
>spent on social programs, most of the money is spent there.
I don't have a lot of time at the moment to respond but this little
point jumped way out off the monitor screen.
3/4 of the budget is on social programs? Where did you get that
little "fact"? A very quick search yielded, consistently, over
several sites, that about ~40% of the budget is on "social" programs.
Depending on where you look, defense is ~25% and debt service is about
~10%.
75(social)+25(defense)+10(debt) = more than 100%.
Gee, leaves not a whole lot for federal agencies and such, huh? Or,
is ALL of government one big "social" program in your eyes?
Then there's this chart that presents a somewhat different
perspective, taking into account past military expenses rather than
hiding them. Admittedly, from the name, a seemingly biased site, but
the numbers seem right (e.g. $700B for military expenditures,
including Irq and Afg. is the figure noted on many other publications)
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
>
-snip of stuff for which I have no time to rebut at the moment
>
>BTW, I think it's all right to spend $ on death star and any other
>defense items to safeguard this country as that and commerce are the
>only things the constitution allows. I don't think government
>retirement and health programs fall under either defense or commerce.
Perhaps you oughta go and have a sit down discussion with the current
occupant at that little place on PA Ave. re: the Constitution.
Tis a shame you seem to favor enriching defense contractors to produce
geewizbang gadgets that have no relevance in today's (or even
tomorrow's) conflicts, but can't seem to help much in overcoming rag
tag bands of third world country resistance. You know, the wars we're
fighting RIGHT NOW?
$700 &$*^%$ BILLION dollars a year) (or $1.3 TRILLION spent so far on
Irq & Afg.) and FIVE years later: we are still fighting, the regional
situations are worsening, OBL is still uncaptured. Good heavens! If
we'd fought WWII with the same verve, we'd still be at it.
>
>So, in summary, when the fiscal ship is taking on water, plugging the
>biggest holes first would give the best chance of staying afloat, and
>the war is small potatoes in that regard.
Glad you think $1.3 Trillion is small potatoes. And, of course, it's
planned to be a fifty year (min) conflict.
Renata
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:34:24 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>How about Heinlein's system, where you don't get the vote until you
>complete a term of completely voluntary government service?
>
>--
Judging by the folks in our old neighborhood that didn't know what our "I Voted"
stickers were, I don't think it would work
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:36:12 GMT, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Nov 13, 12:51 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>>> >service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
>>> >your life for the service of others.
>>>
>>> Someone far smarter than I has suggested the if the draft were
>>> reinstituted, the country would become more unified in a hurry.
>>
>> Maybe that's why the neocons are trying to avoid a draft. They'd
>> rather send recruiters out to the inner city schools and make promises
>> they have no intentions of keeping.
>>
>>
>
>In case you hadn't given it a bit of thought, which I suspect to be the
>case, the draft makes everyone eligible, _except_ those category IV types we
>now recruit because there aren't enough capable CITIZENS to fill even our
>smaller pool.
>
>Without a draft, the danger is an army of compliant dolts led by an officer
>corps who think of nothing but their personal ambition. In short, a Banana
>Republic.
Amen brother! And put term limits on these ner do well rich boys in
congress so we might have a hope of functioning goverment down the
road. (instead of a playpen for people that have never lived in a real
world)
Kenneth
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:43:49 -0000, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>It is important to note too, that the fine men and women in the
>>service now are all volunteers. That's a helluva thing: to volunteer
>>your life for the service of others.
>
>None of us should ever be allowed to question the reasons why a
>soldier volunteers.
>Sure there are some who just want a free education and hope that they
>won't see combat.
>Some have no other place to go.
>Some just use it as a form of voluntary exile.
>...those are just a few.
>
>The bulk of them want to serve their country.
>Those volunteers are already heroes in my book, without having done
>any heroic deeds.
>Those soldiers deserve all the help and respect in times of combat and
>AFTER their tours are up.
>
>The way so many people pay their respects for the troops speaks
>volumes.
>The way the vets are discarded after their usefulness is used
>up...also speaks volumes.
>
>The percentage of vets who become homeless...is a horrifying disgrace.
>What does that say?
>"Thanks for losing that leg, buddy...now you may rot."
As a Parent of one of those volenreers, I'd like to add that though I don't
agree with this war and would like us out of there, I support the troops who are
in harms way and do their job..
I've talked with several kids (that's who we send, right) that signed up for
another tour as soon as they got back.. most of them with the reasoning that
they can help the newly deployed or that they wanted to be back with their
buddies..
Way different than my era of draftees..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:47:06 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> We'd also have a much better equipped military, though I'm strongly
>> against any draft that resembled the one we had..
>>
>> You have to consider that it's been maybe 30 years since we had a
>> draft... which means that we're hoping that skilled folks like
>> doctors and lawyers will give up well paying practices for 4 years
>> to
>> serve their country.. right..
>
>Is there in fact a shortage of physicians in the military? As for
>lawyers, the fewer of them second-guessing the guys on the sharp end
>the better.
YES!
Not only is the medical arm understaffed, if it wasn't for the reservists we
would have mostly foreign nationals as doctors..
They do as well as they can and are eligible for citizenship after their term of
service, but it's a different medical core than we had when there was a draft..
>
>> I am, however in favor of "mac's draft plan", which would require
>> all
>> teens, of both sexes, to spend 2 years in service, be it military,
>> peace core, teaching kids in high poverty areas, etc.. just some
>> kind
>> of public service..
>
>So what are you going to find for them all to do and what programs are
>you going to cancel to get the money to pay them? Or are you just
>going to raise taxes?
Might save the cost of unemployment, welfare, education grants, etc...
All of the programs, such as the Peace Corp, Red Cross, etc. are in place right
now..
>
>> Then, give them some sort of "GI BILL" for education, after they'd
>> seem a bit of life..
>
>Again where does the money come from?
The same place grants and student loans come from.. no change..
>
>> I went to school on the GI bill, and the first thing that you notice
>> is that the vets were older, more serious about learning and
>> motivated... YMWV
>>
>> To those who served... Thank you for your service and welcome home..
>
>Amen.
>
>
>--
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Renata wrote:
>
> So, to summarize.
> SS takes in plenty of $ to handle it's obligations, but the
> government's been "borrowing" that $ 'cause there's been a wee bit
> extra. The time's a commin' where the note comes due, but the ole guv
> ain't inclined to pay it back, 'cause it sorta can't handle it's
> "household" finances as is and sure don't have any extra to be payin'
> back no debt for sumtin' as stupid as an old people's fall back.
>
The trust fund fiasco has operated the way it does since inception by
FDR. The law as written then mandated that the fund(s) buy government
securities with all excess contributions. There is no plundering or
looting of the funds under the law, but the law results in the same.
The cash the government receives for the trust fund IOUs goes into the
general fund and is used for all sorts of things - non of which are
related to the fund(s). Since three fourhts of the federal budget is
spent on social programs, most of the money is spent there.
Also, the trust fund moneies hid an equivalent amount of deficit
spending since the cash taken by the government is counted as income for
the current year, but the IOUs are not counted as expenses in the
current year. You can very easily verify this by googleing "national
debt" and you will discover that the debt has increased every year since
1960, demonstrating that the surpluses of the late 1990's were an
illusion - unless the definition of deficit, surplus and debt has changed.
Speaking of doing research, the excess SS funds in BJ Clintons time
wasn't $20B/year, but started at $46B and ended at $152B/year for a
total of $687B - and this was just the SS fund. It has increased from
the $152B in 2000 to $186B in 2007. There are another 150 or so other
trust funds that although smaller, operate in the same manner. And as
far as blaming any party or President, this was all set in motion by FDR
and like any government program has grown out of control. Neither
Clinton or Bush changed any of the parameters. The last change was a
bipartisan effort led by Tip O'Neal and Bob Dole which raised the SS tax
rates and indexed withholding, thereby increasing the debt at a faster rate.
BTW, I think it's all right to spend $ on death star and any other
defense items to safeguard this country as that and commerce are the
only things the constitution allows. I don't think government
retirement and health programs fall under either defense or commerce.
So, in summary, when the fiscal ship is taking on water, plugging the
biggest holes first would give the best chance of staying afloat, and
the war is small potatoes in that regard.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Max" wrote
>
>> I live in El Paso and we have Fort Bliss as neighbors. I have many
> military
>> friends who have come and gone and many who have retired here.
>> It was great news to me when I heard that BRAC (Base Realignment and
>> Closure) program would bring the 1st Cavalry Division here to Ft. Bliss.
>> I served with the 1st Cav in Korea ('50 - '51)
>
> Ahhh yes, good old Ft Bliss ...intro was being yanked from the bed of a
> lovely, warm young wife at 5AM to travel by bus from College Station to
> the
> induction station in Houston, then waking up in basic training, in Fort
> Bliss, the very next morning ... can you spell culture s h o c k?
>
> Then back again in '68 as a shavetail 2nd looey for a memorable year
> before
> going to the inevitable South China Sea land of enchantment.
>
> A summer of jack rabbit hunting with a pistol out of the bed of a pickup,
> dove hunting further down south on the Rio Grande where half the birds
> fell
> into Mexico and you didn't even have to get your feet wet to retrieve
> them,
> and the El Paso Sun Kings! Watching baseball, the way it was meant to be,
> outdoors, on a clear summer evening on that desert floor, and with the
> Franklin Mountain's as a backdrop, just before drugs, attitude and the TV
> culture ruined the game forever.
>
> A buck for a ticket on the first base line with a military, ID and 50
> cents
> for cold beer.
>
> Surely things of the past ... but what memories (as my achilles tendons
> still remind me, thanks to that weekly 7 mile march/double time to the
> rifle
> range and back, in desert SAND!)
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 11/11/07
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
LOL. You would be amazed to see what's happened to where the rifle range
used to be. It was Castner Range. It's now "Castner Heights" addition.
The Border Patrol is constructing a large facility on part of the old range
close to the mountain.
The "Sun Kings" are now the "Diablos". They have a new stadium near where
the rifle range was.
I came here in March, '50 to go to guided missile school. The cadre hadn't
been formed yet and the school was delayed. Then came June, '50.
I was invited to join the forces in Korea.
Population of El Paso in 1953, when I joined the Fire Department was
130,000.
When I retired as Deputy Chief, it was 600,000. It's close to 700,000 now.
Lots of changes.
Max
"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>Those who don't serve in the military for whatever reason should be drafted
>for public works projects (like depression era Civilian Conservation
>Corps),
Why do you think it is that you don't see prisoners working in road
gangs and other public works projects? Because it takes the public tax
dollars away from contractors/big political contributors.
Dave in Houston