The real meaning of "Support the Troops"
Although there are legitimate fears of draft reinstatement, the fact of the matter is that we presently have an all-volunteer armed services. But, what exactly does “all-volunteer” mean?
Clearly, it means everyone in the armed forces signed up for their service. Sure, the young men and women soldiers are disproportionately from lower socioeconomic brackets and are less likely to have college and parental economic support as options. But they all signed up nonetheless.
So, regardless of the circumstances leading to their enlistment, it is undeniable that they put their own John Hancock on the dotted line. Okay, but what is exactly that they were signing up (volunteering) for?
Well, to defend the country of course. To defend all of us against whatever evil forces there may be – and potentially even to defend innocent peoples of other nations who face insurmountable evils. This we know.
But is it also the case that in volunteering, what they are putting their John Hancock on is not just a contract of service, but also a form of implicit social contract as well? The young volunteers of our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are as bright and idealistic as they are brave. They gave their bravery and themselves to the
Our end of the contract is to send them in harms way only when necessary (always a difficult term to use in matters of life and death) and only in a manner of utmost responsibility and respect for human life. Although we have had our failings, as a nation we have usually done a good job at holding up our part of the deal. However, it is not so easy in times of such as these when we find ourselves in the aftershock of a terrorist attack, with our armed forces operating at or near capacity in two theatres of war (
According to a New York Times article, Army recruiters are under pressure to loosen the qualifications for enlistment and falsify recruit records to meet the recruitment needs of the wartime force. The article details one recruit who was accepted fresh out of a three-week commitment to a mental hospital. Other recruits have reportedly been instructed on how to hide narcotics from Army eligibility drug tests.
It also appears to be the case that we are not fully upholding our end of the bargain once our troops have been deployed. Dozens (at least) of the more than 1,500 American soldier deaths could have been prevented with better armor on their vehicles.
The bottom line is that the young men and women of the American armed forces are the best in the world. No doubt. They have more than fulfilled their obligation to us, we owe it to them to make sure - that we never overlook the fact that we as a nation have an obligation to them as well – to only send them to war when we have to, to give them what they need to do the job right, and to make damn sure they come back home when their job is done.
--posted by Miles Granderson
posted by Anonymous at 4:51 PM
30 Comments:
Sounds like you're suggesting that we need to spend more on the military. Good idea. I think the money is well spent in terms of keeping us safer. And thank God we have so many young peoplle who are willing to sacrifice so much so that we can enjoy our freedoms. Not to mention the 50 million or so that theyv'e freed from tyranny in the last few years.
That's wonderful that you think we should support our troops by buying them better armor. But wasn't cutting military spending one of Han's (implied) proposals for how to solve the Social Security problem? (He said our priorities are wrong - i.e. military spending over Social Security). Or is this guns and butter?
Rock the Vote must be taking after John Kerry on the flip-flopping.
Which one is it, Rock the Vote? Increase spending for our military, like this person says? Or cutting the military budget and "creating a priority" by spending that money on Social Security instead, like our resident demagogue Hans Riemer prefers?
For the record, I agree with the poster of this entry that military spending should be increased. I think it only goes to show that even some members of Rock the Vote, deep down inside, see Hans Riemer's idiocy for what it is. (Also add to that the the fact that Social Security is financed by payroll taxes, and the military is financed by income taxes, thus making Hans's entire point entirely irrelevant.)
But, I suppose Hans Riemer has a solution to both of these problems:
INCREASE TAXES! ON EVERYONE EXCEPT HANS!
It looks like the military is the next thing to become....HANSIFIED!!!
5 days and counting...Hans has yet to defend his last post.
"The bottom line is that the young men and women of the American armed forces are the best in the world."
I think the soldiers in other nation's military such as Isreal might take offense to this. I'm proud of our troops, but "best in the world" may be a little unfair to the rest of the world if not somehow qualified.
I'm suprised he didn't bring up the missuse of the National Guard. Why the hell is the National Gaurd being sent? That is NOT what they signed up for.
What do you think the national guard is for? Do you know what you're talking about? Go to their website to find out if you want to be informed.
http://www.arng.army.mil/history/
Here is a little about the history of the guard. Do you think they signed up for World War II, Vietnam, Korean War, Kosovo, Desert Storm, etc.
"The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest enduring institutions, celebrated its 366th birthday in 2002. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.
The Guard doubled the size of the Regular Army when it was mobilized in 1940, more than a year before Pearl Harbor, and contributed 19 divisions to that war, as well as numerous other units including Guard aviation squadrons. More than 138,000 Guardsmen were mobilized for Korea, followed by numerous smaller mobilizations for the Berlin Crisis, Vietnam, and numerous strikes and riots at home. Approximately 63,000 Army Guardsmen were called to serve in Desert Storm, and in the decade since then Guardsmen have seen a greater role than ever before -- conducting peacekeeping in Somalia, Haiti, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardsmen were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad.
Today's National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing the states with units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while providing the nation with units ready to defend the United States and its interests around the world."
Allow me to make at least some excuse for myself... "Guard" suggests a defensive role. Deploying troops to wage war on forign soil seems a bit offensive to me.
From the information provided I must concede your point. Thanks for providing this information.
Very few armies in the history of the world have gone into war totally prepared for the engagement. Our military has never been completely prepared for all of the environments or opponents that they have faced. The strength in our military is its ability to adapt to meet and ever changing enemies.
Hummers were not designed for the role they are taking, but they have been adapted to meet that role. That unfortunatly takes time. In the begining of WWII our tanks were not ready for combat. The fuel they used tended to explode and rivets popped off in the tanks. That was quickly changed. Our planes were not up to par so we redesigned planes.
Issues like with the armored hummers are not new to battle and they will always exist as long as there is war. It is sad that sometimes it costs lives to see a problem.
HAHAHAHA! I just saw RTV's Han Reimer get totally punked on Fox News! They had a panel of financial experts...and Hans. Hans kept saying "If we do nothing, social security benefits will INCREASE for young people."
The panel looked at him like he had a third eye coming out of his head. They kept trying to explain to him how wrong he was, and he kept repeating that ridiculous mantra, making himself look even dumber.
Here's a tip Hans. Even if you disagree with Bush's plan, you shouldn't try to use absurd and financially unsound statements to make your case. Anyone watching that show came away thinking he was an idiot.
You mean now Fox News was HANSIFIED too?
Amazing.
Hans knows he has to use absurdities as his arguments, because it's the only way to demagogue the issue and scare young people into supporting his partisan agenda on this issue. If people knew the facts, they'd be arguing against Hans just like the majority of commenters here do- those of us who are aware of what the trust fund REALLY is and what the current system's problems truly are laugh at Hans whenever we see him present an "argument" against reform.
Unfortunately, Rock the Vote's audience doesn't do much thinking, and thus leaves demagogues like Hans Reimer to do the thinking for them.
The social security system is going broke. The math is indisputable. The Politicians are squabbling over who is going to be the heroes and fix it. Some want to give you a choice and some don't.
The Bush compromise on Privatization states your savings is forced by law but you get to keep it in the end. At $35k p/year that could be a minimum of $250,000 as a nest egg for you at retirement. If you don't choose a Personal Savings Account you will get nothing except a very minimum benefit check.
The Democrats not only want the retirement account to be forced but they want the money when you die.
Forced savings in a Personal Account will allow for four times the monthly check when you retire plus your Medicare is taken care. When you die you can leave an insurance and education fund for your children or grandchildren, or just leave the benefits as they are for anyone you choose to leave it to.
Finally, its your choice. You can elect to stay in the current social security system or choose the New Social Security system or you can mix and match. The only decent thing to do is give you the income earner a choice. Some elitist in congress do not want you to have that choice because they don't think you can responsibly make the right choice which is to give them all your retirement money.
It amazes me how scared Democrats are of losing power to an extremely powerful tool to make poor people rich. For them The New Social Security is a Republican Generator. It is cool to be a Republican!
Here is a real life horror story about how Louisiana will "Support the Troops". This is happening today!!:
Let me tell you what Louisiana is doing to "Support the Troops"? A law that has been on the books forever, prior to 9/11 when deployment was not likely, provides for the extension of College Tuition Deferrals to compensate for wartime deployment. Gone for a year-get a year back.
Sounds good, right?
Well, the soldiers have to be "Active" in order to go to college. After this war, most soldiers will have lost too much time due to deployment to complete their degrees and will become "Inactive" at the 6 year mark. At that point they LOSE their Tuition Deferrals because they went to Iraq and will no longer be "Active".
Wait, it gets better.....A bill was introduced in the Louisiana Senate fixing this problem. (SB100).
Here comes the rub: Our LA National Guard commanders along with Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco have introduced opposing legislation (HB775)that requires the soldiers to RE-ENLIST if they want to get the extension of all of the college time they were promised. They do not get their time back unless they are "Active". The only way to be "Active" after the 6 year mark is to RE-ENLIST. No re-enlistment? You're on your own after that 6 year contract period. Too bad for you little soldiers...
If their enlistment ends before they finish school they no longer can receive tuition exemption unless they reenlist...as the law stands now.
I am the mother of a soldier who was willing to go to war in order to go to college and while he is over there our GOVERNOR and the TOP RANKING NATIONAL GUARD ADMINISTRATION is TAKING COLLEGE AWAY FROM ALL OF THESE SOLDIERS UNLESS THEY RE-ENLIST!!!
How do you like the way Louisiana is supporting their troops? These bills are up for committee on Monday, May 9, 2005 and we need help getting the word out to STOP THE THEFT OF COLLEGE FROM LOUISIANA SOLDIERS!!! YOUR STATE COULD BE NEXT!!! Can you help?
Email angela@payproinc.net, serious
inquiries only. I'll provide links, copies of bills, etc. for verification. We only have until MONDAY MAY 9, 2005!
MTV-We need you to get this out!
8 days and counting...Hans has yet to defend his last post.
This is getting absurd. Hans you have three things you need to answer. First: You claim benefits will be higher for today's college graduates even if there is no Social Security reform. But do you at least admit that our taxes will have to be raised in 2017 to pay for those benefits? Second: You claim Bush is threatening to slash benefits on the middle class with progressive indexing. But do you at least admit that if nothing is done (which currently seems to be your proposal), promised benefits will have to be cut on EVERYONE, including the poor? And finally: Will you please explain to people that when you talk about 'cutting' benefits you are first talking about reducing the rate of GROWTH of benefits and second are referring to benefit PROMISES which currently cannot be paid.
Leaving such things unsaid borders of factual error and is certainly intellectually dishonest. You have a responsibilty to honestly inform our generation on this issue. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Don't expect Hans to defend any position, he's a typical liberal editor, all he does is make claims and believes he has no need to respond to any criticism or proof that his supporting facts are wrong.
As for this post, I agree we need to support the troops more, however tying the hum-v issue in with this argument is a bit hollow. As was posted before, the vehicles we had at the time were not designed for heavy combat or to be able to survive an RPG attack (most of the world tanks can't even measure up to that last one). And as much as I disagree with some of what Donald Rumsfield has done during these conflicts I do agree 100% when he pointed out that you go to war with the Military you have, not the Military you want. We've adapted to the conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan and our men and women have done a marvelous job winning both wars (and make no mistake about it the wars are over, the job of getting the countries back on their feet is a new operation just like Germany and Japan after WWII).
The one way all of us can help and support the troops is giving to the USO, participate in local troop support programs and even adopting a military family. Those are ways we can help now, not waiting until some politician decides its ok to raise military spending, but supporting the troops who are currently sacrificing all for us.
Hans got PWN3D by Cavuto. That, in and of itself, is pathetic. Maybe Hans is too shamed to show how face now. I know I would be.
So we must now add Cavuto to the list of people that HANSIFICATION didn't work on.
I think that makes the list a good 50-60 people between this blog and Fox News that have totally OWNED Hans in the past few days.
That's what happens when you place partisan hackery over the truth and the well being over the generation you claim to represent...RIGHT HANS?
Hans has the troops coming down hard on him. Well it is a compiment that so much action is happening on this blog.
I'll draw some flak by asking everyone who has posted if you vote during an election?
Why bother to vote? Pardon the Canadian flavour, but does the following seem logical. Have you any other, better reasons to offer to justify voting?
Why Bother to Vote?
[1] To keep from losing freedoms. Freedoms you may not feel now. But, you will feel the pain when they are lost. You will also not be throwing away everything that thousands of Canadians gave up their lives for during three or more wars. Don’t let it happen.
[2] To keep your healthcare and pensions. Canada is rich in natural wealth and so, can afford to provide us with life enhancing benefits. Corporations want that wealth to be added to their profits bottom line. They financially support conservative and right leaning political parties to do that for them. Don’t let it happen.
[3] Because it’s so Easy. You just walk in. Check your name and address on the list. Mark your ballot and drop it into the box.
Just twenty minutes so you can say you did your part to save our world famous Health care and Pensions and protect our most precious freedoms.
I thought I would never get ’old’. Well everybody does and if health care doesn’t crash and burn, You will get there too someday. I do not feel old. Am still doing things I did when I was 39.
The reason Health care is so important is that it may be why I feel so young at 65. Thankfully, because our government pensions are healthy and generous, I can really enjoy life rather than be forced to dumpster dive..
Dumpster diving may seem like fun for some people, but I would rather avoid it. Please do vote OK? It’s for your gain as well as mine.
TonyGuitar at BendGovt.blog.ca or BendGovernment.blogspot.com
In response to the Canadian:
Yes, I voted, and I voted for President Bush specifically on the Social Security issue. In fact, the Democrats' lack of a plan on this (and how they demagogued the issue pre-election) was enough to make me ditch the Democratic Party once and for all. There were a few other factors, but that was one of them.
As far as "defending our freedoms" by voting to "protect health care and pension plans" go, that statement was pure Canadian naivete at it's finest. You people have a healthcare system that forces you, in many cases, to wait 8-12 weeks to get a referral acted upon, and then another 8-12 weeks to get further action taken. And all of this comes at the cost of higher taxes, ones that will continue to go up as the Canadian replacement rate in population goes lower and lower. Thanks, but no thanks.
Entitlements rely on population growth. They're all giant ponzi schemes, which count on more and more people always being around. That's why you're seeing them fail in Western Europe, and that's why Canada's healthcare system is a joke for anyone who needs serious medical treatment. The same occurs in Britain, where they are now considering placing age restrictions on what kind of people can receive what kind of treatment, simply because they can't afford their socialized healthcare scheme.
Social Security and Medicare are healthier than Canada or Britain's schemes right now, but that's going to change once the population situation gets even more worse than it is today. I'm glad our President at least is willing to do something about it, and I'm glad that young people aren't listening to the entitlement tax mongers like Hans over here. Americans are smart, and hopefully they won't go down the path of Britain and Canada.
Entitlements are no "freedom." Entitlements are the path to slavery, and my Canadian pal above sure knows that, but will never admit it. There is no such thing as a free lunch, so Mr. Entitlement above should consider where the money to pay for his socialized healthcare REALLY comes from.
Let's see!...HMmmmm ...Did I gather that right? Did Hans just say we need to spend more on the military? Is Hans coming into reality? Could it be democracy and freedom in the world is a good thing?...Hans are you becoming one of those right wing people? Are you actually agreeing with conservatives? What will people think?...
Nah, this was some other dude posting. Hans would NEVER end his partisan hackery just for the sake of protecting the troops- NEVER! it is funny though to see Rock the Vote contradict itself, with Hans attacking military spending, then this guy promoting it.
TonyGuitar must thank anonymous for the thoughtful thinking efforts you have taken to reply to my pro-health-care rant above.
You realize that taxes for healthcare are not onerous as long as government does a medium job of keeping the economy and thus emplyment healthy
As long as new taxpayers come into emplyment as seniors retire, there will be an ever growing economy.
The present delays for medical in Canada at the moment will soon be corrected
The Liberal government, soon to be ousted. got into the habit of shovelling our general revenues out of the treausury back door.
The good thing about this is that the voting public can now see and are pressing for audits and controls in each Mistry department.
In spite of these public revenue losses, Canada still has an economy second to none in the G7.
You can probably understand how when accounting and auditing are properly in place, Health-Care will once again be the best system going once again.
We now have huge additional public revenues in Canada, and some of these increases have occured in the USA as well.
There has been a great increase in Lotteries, Keno, Pub horse racing, and casinos incomes. There have also been billions in revenue gains through petrolium prices increases.
There will also be tremendous savings of public wealth when new adit and account safeguards are in place for all govt. departments.
It is possible that Anonymous is well placed in a corporate or professional structure with an infallible power to lobby government.
In that case it is logical to rant against any and all social programs.
I still value hearing your thoughtful arguments however. Always open to views and ideas.
73s pal, TonyGuitar at BendGovt.blog.ca
P.S. Sorry about all the errors above. Every six months I get a partial vision blaze where I can not see any detail. The meaning expressed is probably clear anyway. The above was posted mosly be feel. 73s TonyGuitar
Anonymous, I'm so unbelievably glad that you're not making public policy.
Social Security isn't a freaking savings account. It's what we decided to put in place to promote the general welfare and keep old and disabled people from starvation. It's a really good program, its financial health can be fixed without benefit cuts, and privatization will be the death of the program's effectiveness.
Social Security is one of the cheapest government programs to implement (and one of the best loved by the public), mostly because it's single-payer. Yeah, like that universal health care that we dream about and you illogically oppose (every one of our competitors in the world offers their workers free health care so their corporations don't factor the burden of providing it into the cost of their exports--we want GM to have to raise prices to keep up with the cost of health care? Health care in the US inflates at about eight times the rate of inflation), Social Security is a single-payer system--everyone pays into a fund, and the fund pays out to recipients. There aren't personal/private/[insert focus group tested label here] accounts involved because those cost a fortune to administer.
Think about the size of the bureaucracy you'd be asking for with private accounts--you want the government dealing with that much extra paperwork, for every paycheck, for every single employee in America's labor force?
Oh, and Hans was suggesting we make the rich guys who took all our government's operating expenditures pay some of it back to reinforce both our Humvees and our Social Security trust fund. Seeing as how, you know, they can afford to lose their $5600/yr Social Security when Dick Cheney is saving $100,000/yr on his taxes (W and Laura only get to keep an extra $25,000--not bad for a guy who ran every business he ever controlled into the ground and traded Sammy Sosa)
w - your argument is completely illogical, SS is a tax heaped upon every worker in America that goes to pay current SS beneficiaries. Its not guaranteed to be there when you reach the age of retirement, the government can spend it all (and they have) and not give you one dime if they so choose. The current system is solvent now because the number of workers:retirees is at a level where 12%+ of your pay can support it. Fast forward to the near future when retirees live longer and multiply faster than workers can replace them on the SS payroll. What will you propose when we get to 4:1 workers to retirees? Should we all just raise our 'contribution' to say 30% of our paycheck? What about 40%? Should we keep the retirement age the same when American's are living longer?
the government can spend it all (and they have)
...and for that you can thank President Bush and the Republican Congress, who have increased government spending more than any administration before them. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750)
Should we trust the same people who dug us into this hole to dig us out of it? When they don't even include the cost of the war in Iraq in their plan for "halving the deficit"?
"What will you propose when we get to 4:1 workers to retirees? Should we all just raise our 'contribution' to say 30% of our paycheck? "
Wow, you have absoltely no ide how this program works, and you have no idea what the national debate actually contains. You're bad at this. REALLY bad.
We're not talking about increasing the percentage of taken for social security. Right now, under the current system, no person in America, no matter what their income, pays more than $6000/yr. So if you make $90,000, you pay around $6000. If you make $10,000,000, you pay around $6000. It's because we only collect SS up to a set level of income, and after that we don't. If that cap were raised, eliminated entirely or eliminated for the upper class the system would stay solvent indefinitely. If we follow Bush's plan, the solvency problem is UNADDRESSED, and SS will still be strapped for cash.
And by the way, Social Security TAXES are a tax on workers--Social Security is the most effective government program since rural electrification, and no argument you've given recognizes that fact, leading me to wonder if you're not simply a privatization sheep in wolf's clothing.
Fact is, the program works, and it just needs a tweaking to be around for our generation's grandkids. If someone tells you that it's not going to be around when you're ready to retire, it's because they want you to believe the situation is hopeless. That's what's known in political circles as "bullshit."
You are demanding more explanations and justifications from Hans than any Republican has demanded from Bush.
In case you *really* want an explanation, let me help out....
"You claim benefits will be higher for today's college graduates even if there is no Social Security reform"
Bush on SS has a fundamental problem: the projections for private acounts assume a rate of return that could only be justified by a higher economic growth rate than is used for projections on what happens if nothing is done. So if Bush thinks that the rate of return on private accounts that he uses is accurate, then there is no need to mess with SS. The 2042(?) date is based on much lower growth rates.
"Second: You claim Bush is threatening to slash benefits on the middle class with progressive indexing. But do you at least admit that if nothing is done (which currently seems to be your proposal), promised benefits will have to be cut on EVERYONE, including the poor?"
No, see above. In addition, Bush has been forced to admit that his plan has essentially NO EFFECT on the overall solvency of SS.
"Will you please explain to people that when you talk about 'cutting' benefits you are first talking about reducing the rate of GROWTH of benefits and second are referring to benefit PROMISES which currently cannot be paid."
What are you talking about? Bush himself has been forced to admit that benefits will be cut. Not growth rates, but amounts. As it is now, even if nothing is done, and the actuarial projections are accurate, all promises will be kept until 2042(?) and only *then* will actual payouts be reduced. But I'll refer you back to #1 again.
The Democrat plan is keep SS largely as it is, with ongoing review to see if *adjustments* are needed, not abolishing it and gambling our future on the market.
All of this, of course, hides the fact that the biggest financial problem the country faces is the rising deficit. The biggest causes of the deficit: Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy (and probably the estate tax removal) and the increasing cost of Medicaire.
The cost of Iraq is a reality, but there has been a *huge* amount of waste and/or corruption. When the troops are being paid $20K - $30K (that's probably high) and don't have adequate armour, but private contractors are being paid $60K+, somethings wrong.
And by the way, the Guard has always been *primarily* for domestic deployment, with foreign deployment only as a secondary option based on need. We are currently using a higher percentage of Guard (and possibly Reserve) than ever before, and for longer tours than ever before.
For now, I will resist the temptation to compare the 2005 Guard reality with what it was like way back in, say, the 1970's.
Not to be picky, but....
>>That's what's known in political circles as "bullshit"
Unfortunately, that's what's known in political circles as "spin" or "marketing" or "explainifying".
Only in the *real* world, among the people who *don't* benefit from the removal of the estate tax is it known as "bullshit".
That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with politics, on both sides, in our country.
The pension part of social security should be considered fully funded by the government. The current commuted value of every participant should be simply added to the debt.
I've noticed several sites on the Internet that promote a penis enlargement through "ancient" techniques of strengthening (and yes, lengthening) the penis through exercises. These sites claim that since the penis is a muscle, it can be conditioned and exercised for greater and permanent length and girth. Is this possible?
Post a Comment
<< Home