|Numbers| Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0 Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001. Please pay attention to the graph in the above link as it illustrates what happens when America does something dumb like what Hagel has in mind. I had just finished reading a biography of General Gavin (82nd airborne commander, ambassador, staff officer, etc...) and Eisenhower. Unique is that Hagel wants to downgrade the Army in this manner when it has been shown time and time again that if this happens, there will be suffering from those who will be forced to bear the burden of a downsized force going into battle. The commitments around the world are not decreasing, the potential wars are not decreasing, etc... yet, Hagel wants the Army to downsize to pre WW2 levels ? "In the uncertain world of tomorrow," General Gavin wrote in 1955, the United States faces the need for greater military preparedness than ever before., As the Free World's leader, our nation seeks to prevent aggression In any form, The military role in supporting this na- tional policy is to be able to win wars, large or small, atomic or non-atomic. This is a very big order. It establishes a new func- tion for the Army: that is, in addition to being able to mobilize for a largo-scale war, the Army must have sizable forces in being, ready to move by land, sea, or air and fight any time, any place,... http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1917&dat=19581024&id=ovstAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_H4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2776,3760596 "It meant agreeing to close our minds once again to the challenge of tomorrow's land warfare..." Taken in response to the Army's idea of a "New Look" which relied heavily on nuclear deterrence (ie... mass retaliation as a means of war deterrence) and depleted the personnel in the military. The policy was developed by Eisenhower and quite a few others of which Gavin was most certainly not part of. Before the Korean war started he warned them of depleting the man power and said similar things before Vietnam as well. Gavin was most certainly not a Dove but was not a Hawk either. He was a proponent of tactical weapons but not a total reliance on weapons to end a war. Worked with some major powers that be during his day and age but failed to impress upon those that made the decisions of the importance of not depleting the troop force. Gavin came into the service during one of the tightest downsized military the US had faced (pre-WW2 post WW1). Pretty sure we don't need WW2 levels any more but what out there has taken away a need for the amount we have now ? Besides the obvious issue of money as a cause for downsizing; Are there fewer wars on the horizon ? Is there a Super Weapon which I am not aware of which nobody else has that makes war obsolete ? etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PatternMaster Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 This has everything to do with the cost of providing benefits to all of the enlisted servicemen and women..http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/24/281955972/pentagon-budget-cutting-plans-sure-to-draw-flak When Hagel's budget will go to Congress next week, Tom says, the component that might get the sharpest reaction has to do with reducing the Pentagon's spending on pay and benefits. The proposals range from putting pay raises at one percent to getting soldiers to pay more for health care, housing and food at commissaries.As Tom said on Morning Edition, Pentagon officials warn that those costs "are eating us alive." The average annual cost of pay and benefits for each active-duty member of the military, for instance, has risen from about $54,000 a decade ago to $110,000 now, he said. The costs of health insurance and other benefits for retirees are also soaring.Hagel has previously told NPR that because the rising pay, benefit and retirement costs are accounting for an increasingly large share of the Pentagon's budget, they threaten to leave the nation with "a military that's heavily compensated, but probably a force that's not capable and not ready." If those costs aren't trimmed, he said, training and hardware will have to be cut instead. "Today, there are about 520,000 active-duty soldiers, which the Army had planned to reduce to 490,000," Hagel tells reporters at the Pentagon. But, he says, after reviews it has been determined "that since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged stability operations, an Army of this size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defense strategy. Given reduced budgets, it is also larger than we can afford to modernize and keep ready. We have decided to further reduce active-duty Army end-strength to a range of [440,000] to 450,000 soldiers." Also with the use of technology, like drones, you can see that the military can cut the size of it's forces and still get the job done. What I find ironic is that many of the people who are in the military and benefit from the social services that they feel they are entitled to, receive healthcare, housing, etc...at a greatly reduce cost than the average American, but many of these people vote against a "socialist" president and his policies. The need for a huge army is just not necessary, despite the fear that the military industrial complex tries to use to justify it's obscene budget. The money that is spent on the military would be better spent on things like improving our infrastructure and improving our nation, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 The need for a huge army is just not necessary, despite the fear that the military industrial complex tries to use to justify it's obscene budget. The money that is spent on the military would be better spent on things like improving our infrastructure and improving our nation, imo. QFMFT... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 This has everything to do with the cost of providing benefits to all of the enlisted servicemen and women..http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/24/281955972/pentagon-budget-cutting-plans-sure-to-draw-flak Also with the use of technology, like drones, you can see that the military can cut the size of it's forces and still get the job done. What I find ironic is that many of the people who are in the military and benefit from the social services that they feel they are entitled to, receive healthcare, housing, etc...at a greatly reduce cost than the average American, but many of these people vote against a "socialist" president and his policies. The need for a huge army is just not necessary, despite the fear that the military industrial complex tries to use to justify it's obscene budget. The money that is spent on the military would be better spent on things like improving our infrastructure and improving our nation, imo. Should military benefits be cut and not the civilian benefits ? Does the civilian sector receive benefits equal to or greater than military benefits ? Housing ? Food Stamps ? etc... I never saw this magical figure of 110,000 in my entire time in or since I have been out. Tried to figure out how this magical figure is arrived at. Perhaps if I had been hurt while on the job in the civilian community I could have sued the company that it happened at. Since military does not have the same ability, perhaps healthcare that they receive while they are in and in some cases once they get out is justified. In regards to housing, I changed duty stations every few years. Not sure about the average civilian but if they had changed jobs to a different state or in some cases different country every few years, would they be able to afford to do so without some form of assistance ? Not every military member fits in the shoes I have wore but had it been one of the civilians that had a job similar to a friend of mine that worked for Proctor and Gamble and a significant other that worked for a bank, they get housing subsistence and reduced interest rates on loans in addition to assignment of a free real estate agent. I agree Elf. "The money that is spent on the military would be better spent on things like improving our infrastructure and improving our nation." It is most certainly the truth. To be fair, should we not cut the civilian sector by equal amounts also ? I am not referring to the absurd budget on weapon systems, ships, airplanes, etc... which should be reviewed and cut. I am referring to the "social programs" assigned to military and civilian sector. How far should these cuts go and how much should the government become involved in telling companies like Proctor and Gamble or "insert bank or tech company's name here" that they should not subsidize their employees but should instead turn that money back over to the government to do with as they wish. This has everything to do with the cost of providing benefits to all of the enlisted servicemen and women..http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/24/281955972/pentagon-budget-cutting-plans-sure-to-draw-flak Also with the use of technology, like drones, you can see that the military can cut the size of it's forces and still get the job done. What I find ironic is that many of the people who are in the military and benefit from the social services that they feel they are entitled to, receive healthcare, housing, etc...at a greatly reduce cost than the average American, but many of these people vote against a "socialist" president and his policies. The need for a huge army is just not necessary, despite the fear that the military industrial complex tries to use to justify it's obscene budget. The money that is spent on the military would be better spent on things like improving our infrastructure and improving our nation, imo. The use of technology will allow the services to cut its size and still get the job done is a time worn argument. It has been brought up before Korea and also Vietnam. Did it work then ? Nope. We went in unprepared and uninformed before both of these conflicts. Relying on technology to downsize only resulted in deaths and massive mistakes that are still reverberating to this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/24/281955972/pentagon-budget-cutting-plans-sure-to-draw-flak "After a dozen years of war, the defense secretary made clear that the days of large American forces endlessly patrolling a foreign land are over." "We must now adapt, innovate and make difficult decisions to ensure that our military remains ready and capable — maintaining its technological edge over all potential adversaries," I'm glad that Hagel believes, "that the days of large American forces endlessly patrolling a foreign land are over." I truly am glad he thinks that. If only he would release where in the world he obtained that crystal ball that gave him the power to see into the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Note: Do the politicians receive reduced healthcare costs and housing costs ? Are they afforded an opportunity to retire well before the military can consider retirement ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Oh, wait... The past decade of faux hero-worship might just be lip service? Who would have thought that the powers-that-be would be so capable of turning on a dime--going from pumping up the masses to revere our meat-for-the-grinder warriors in the service of their imperial foreign policy, and then to subject those very same troops to the same old, tired neoliberal economic prescriptions of austerity in the form of reduced benefits and broken promises? My country tis of thee, Sweet land of austerity, Go eat some beans. If you can't pay your bills, Remember your wartime thrills; You're part of Gen-er-ation Kill-- Go eat some beans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 I am about as staunch of a supporter of the US military on this board or anywhere else you will find. That said, the bloated, excessive military spending needed reigned in in a BIG way, but not at the expense of benefits for the troops. Cut the force levels down in terms of numbers, fine (back when I was in they were doing that after the fall of the Berlin wall...they called it QMPing..."qualitative management program"...which essentially means if you are a piece of shit not making rank based on performance and coasting towards retirement then you're gone...and I agree with that). UAV's certainly play a role in that decision as I am sure other technologies do as well. My Dad was actually in charge of Army base closures in the early 1990's under Clinton. Talk about painful decisions. You're talking about not only jettisoning people out of the service but shutting down all the ancillary businesses that depend on US soldiers for business when you close some of these bases that had been around for decades. Talk about hotly contested...this was one of the major reasons my Dad absconded from the military after 36 years even though he was in line for another star and the Chief of Engineers job...politics. Every congresscritter that had bases pinpointed for closures in their districts were up in arms. People don't realize this, but Donald Rumsfeld, fuckhead that he was, actually did something right here in envisioning the way US forces should not only be based and positioned but what kind of forces we should deploy in an ever changing threat environment. This was his major achievement as SECDEF. And now here we are years later, needing to streamline again. Anyway, I certainly don't agree with cutting commissary prices nor any reductions in benefits of ANY KIND to our service members. They are already underpaid and overworked...the health insurance and cheaper groceries, housing, etc was always supposed to be part of the enticement to serve and to make their often chaotic lives better and to compensate for the shitty pay and all the other bullshit that accompanies service to our nation in a military manner. I guess what I am saying is that I agree the defense budget needs (and has needed for a long time) cutting. But not some of the measures they are proposing. These same fucks in Washington that think they know what the fuck is up are not bound by Obamacare, vote themselves raises every chance they get and shield their own children from military service because of money. Fuck them. Why don't they work for minimum wage, or perhaps cap their raises, force them into the same deals the general public endures with healthcare, subject them to the same laws regular Americans face or impose Senate term limits? Egad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Here's an idea; cut the funding for this motherfucker: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE82S03L20120329?irpc=932 That $1.45 trillion would pay the benefits for quite a few poor souls chucked into the wood chipper of geopolitics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted February 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Oh, wait... The past decade of faux hero-worship might just be lip service? Who would have thought that the powers-that-be would be so capable of turning on a dime--going from pumping up the masses to revere our meat-for-the-grinder warriors in the service of their imperial foreign policy, and then to subject those very same troops to the same old, tired neoliberal economic prescriptions of austerity in the form of reduced benefits and broken promises? My country tis of thee, Sweet land of austerity, Go eat some beans. If you can't pay your bills, Remember your wartime thrills; You're part of Gen-er-ation Kill-- Go eat some beans. Quotes from Generation Kill; Evan 'Scribe' Wright: AAA batteries, dip, Skoal, Copenhagen, baby wipes, flavored pringles in a can and adult diapers. As requested. Why do you need me to get all of this stuff? Sgt. Brad 'Iceman' Colbert: In the infinite wisdom to whoever runs the military post exchange store, they won't sell this stuff in quantity to military personnel. But, for civilians like yourself, the sky is the limit. Evan 'Scribe' Wright: And why is that? Cpl. Josh Ray Person: To Keep us angry. If Marines could get what they needed when they needed it we would be happy and wouldn't ready to kill people all of the time. The Marine Corps is like America's Pitbull. They beat us, mistreat us and every once in awhile, they let us out to attack someone. Cpl. Josh Ray Person: Marines don't need a PX. We are about to loot and pillage a country. UAV's certainly play a role in that decision as I am sure other technologies do as well. I guess what I am saying is that I agree the defense budget needs (and has needed for a long time) cutting. But not some of the measures they are proposing. These same fucks in Washington that think they know what the fuck is up are not bound by Obamacare, vote themselves raises every chance they get and shield their own children from military service because of money. Fuck them. Why don't they work for minimum wage, or perhaps cap their raises, force them into the same deals the general public endures with healthcare, subject them to the same laws regular Americans face or impose Senate term limits? When America finally put satellites in orbit the same statement was made. Technology will cut back on forces required. Same thing was said about nuclear weapons. Cutting back on the "military industrial complex" is a no no but the people which sit behind these consoles and put the "boots on the ground" are not. Encouraging the replacement of troops for technology is IMHO a very bad idea. Remember the Pentomic Army (if not, your father would) which lead to ROAD (Reorganization Objective Army Division) which lead to the Total Force Policy / Concept which exists for the most part until this very day ? Each time the military was promised that it would not affect their ability to respond effectively...etc... Although your father was not involved in the base's closing that I was at, all but two of the bases I was at are now closed. Iceland has turned a portion of the base into a college town becoming the embodiment of the quote, "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more..." Iceland may be one of the few examples I can think of where a base was redundant in the larger picture of things. It's usefulness during it's heyday was as an integral part of the G I U K gap. Providing for monitoring of ocean traffic (sub, surface) from the non frozen ports in the North Atlantic. Remote monitoring (in another location outside the country of Iceland) replaced all of that for the most part. Did not cut down on the amount of people required for monitoring but the base support functions (provided by civilians and paid for by our military) went away. Did not affect the overall ability to respond or to remain effective but it did put money back into the pockets of the government... http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/February%202011/0211force.aspx Laird declared the "Total Force concept" in an Aug. 21, 1970, memorandum to military departments, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and defense agencies. Reduced expenditures would require reductions in overall strengths and capabilities of active forces and increased reliance on combat and combat support units of the Guard and Reserves. "In many instances the lower peacetime sustaining costs of reserve forces units, compared to similar active units, can result in a larger total force for a given budget or the same size force for a lesser budget," he said. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld complained at a press conference in December 2002 the Total Force policy was hampering his ability to deploy combat units to war because he had to concurrently activate Guard and Reserve elements, without which the active components could not conduct operations. (in reference to Vietnam)...The Guard and Reserve were not mobilized during that conflict because President Lyndon B. Johnson preferred to use the draft rather than risk the political fallout of activating units in America’s heartland." When Guard or Reserve units are called, you call out America, he noted. "Governors and members of Congress are stakeholders in the defense of America. The Defense Department would be wise to work with them." He concluded that "the National Guard and Reserves are—along with a properly configured regular force—the cost-effective solution for an uncertain future." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted February 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Here's an idea; cut the funding for this motherfucker:http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE82S03L20120329?irpc=932 That $1.45 trillion would pay the benefits for quite a few poor souls chucked into the wood chipper of geopolitics... This is part of the obvious wastefulness I was referring to. Its not the only program and there are probably bases out there that could realigned also. However, that might just require the government to piss off a few states in which the base or industry reside... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 This is part of the obvious wastefulness I was referring to. Its not the only program and there are probably bases out there that could realigned also. However, that might just require the government to piss off a few states in which the base or industry reside... More accurately, it would require "our" representatives to stop cashing defense contractor checks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 What I find ironic is that many of the people who are in the military and benefit from the social services that they feel they are entitled to, receive healthcare, housing, etc...at a greatly reduce cost than the average American, but many of these people vote against a "socialist" president and his policies. Well the people in the military spend years of their lives sacrificing a normal life for what the politicians deems as the needs of the country. They sacrifice time, health, education and professional growth and family for their service. They end up away from loved ones for long time periods, end up maimed or dead, or emotionally traumatized for the rest of their lives. The very least that these people who have sacrificed so much could be rewarded with is some fucking discounted groceries and a bit of healthcare here and there. To compare the entitlements that they have EARNED and sacrificed for to the free lifetime of government assistance that so many civilians have scammed the system and NOT EVER EARNED is shameful. Shame on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Oh, wait... The past decade of faux hero-worship might just be lip service? Who would have thought that the powers-that-be would be so capable of turning on a dime--going from pumping up the masses to revere our meat-for-the-grinder warriors in the service of their imperial foreign policy, and then to subject those very same troops to the same old, tired neoliberal economic prescriptions of austerity in the form of reduced benefits and broken promises? My country tis of thee, Sweet land of austerity, Go eat some beans. If you can't pay your bills, Remember your wartime thrills; You're part of Gen-er-ation Kill-- Go eat some beans. The only good neoliberal is a dead neoliberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 For Comparison: The Fabulous Life of Your US Legislator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PatternMaster Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Well the people in the military spend years of their lives sacrificing a normal life for what the politicians deems as the needs of the country. They sacrifice time, health, education and professional growth and family for their service. They end up away from loved ones for long time periods, end up maimed or dead, or emotionally traumatized for the rest of their lives. The very least that these people who have sacrificed so much could be rewarded with is some fucking discounted groceries and a bit of healthcare here and there. To compare the entitlements that they have EARNED and sacrificed for to the free lifetime of government assistance that so many civilians have scammed the system and NOT EVER EARNED is shameful. Shame on you. If you willing enlisted in the Armed Services how do you qualify that as sacrifice? I have plenty of friends of and family members who are in all branches of the Armed Services, they knowingly and willing signed up for active duty so explain to me how they deserve more government assistance than a tax paying civilian? The stereotype that every civilian is some government free loader who is scamming the government is just ridiculous, mainly because the majority of the work that most soldiers perform is also performed by civilians. For every hoo-rah shouting commando fighting terrorist in the Afghan mountains there are 10 mechanics, accountants, etc. doing jobs that everyday civilians perform as well. So if I go to work and pay my taxes, haven't I earned any government assistance that I might qualify for? I just don't understand that logic, that because you voluntarily join the armed services and choose a career that will take you away from your family and could possibly put you in a war zone than you are somehow sacrificing your life. If it was such a sacrifice then don't do it..there hasn't been a draft in this country for over 40 years. Like I said I have family members and close friends in the armed services so I do value and appreciate everyone who joins the armed services but please don't volunteer for something and tell me how much you are sacrificing on my behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PatternMaster Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Should military benefits be cut and not the civilian benefits ? Does the civilian sector receive benefits equal to or greater than military benefits ? Housing ? Food Stamps ? etc... I never saw this magical figure of 110,000 in my entire time in or since I have been out. Tried to figure out how this magical figure is arrived at. Perhaps if I had been hurt while on the job in the civilian community I could have sued the company that it happened at. Since military does not have the same ability, perhaps healthcare that they receive while they are in and in some cases once they get out is justified. In regards to housing, I changed duty stations every few years. Not sure about the average civilian but if they had changed jobs to a different state or in some cases different country every few years, would they be able to afford to do so without some form of assistance ? Not every military member fits in the shoes I have wore but had it been one of the civilians that had a job similar to a friend of mine that worked for Proctor and Gamble and a significant other that worked for a bank, they get housing subsistence and reduced interest rates on loans in addition to assignment of a free real estate agent. I agree Elf. "The money that is spent on the military would be better spent on things like improving our infrastructure and improving our nation." It is most certainly the truth. To be fair, should we not cut the civilian sector by equal amounts also ? I am not referring to the absurd budget on weapon systems, ships, airplanes, etc... which should be reviewed and cut. I am referring to the "social programs" assigned to military and civilian sector. How far should these cuts go and how much should the government become involved in telling companies like Proctor and Gamble or "insert bank or tech company's name here" that they should not subsidize their employees but should instead turn that money back over to the government to do with as they wish. The use of technology will allow the services to cut its size and still get the job done is a time worn argument. It has been brought up before Korea and also Vietnam. Did it work then ? Nope. We went in unprepared and uninformed before both of these conflicts. Relying on technology to downsize only resulted in deaths and massive mistakes that are still reverberating to this day. Numbers you are not an example of the average enlisted serviceman and comparing the average enlisted solider to a P&G employee is not an apples to apples comparison. I'm not saying that people in the military don't deserve benefits and assistance from their employer, the US government, however just like any other employer that faces financial difficulties, may also be subjected layoffs and loses of benefits it the employer decides they can no longer financially support all of their employees. Civilians in the private sector face these issues all of the time, in my job I meet people everyday who have been laid off after years of service and have no health insurance or assistance to speak of. As for technology, you can't blame the mistakes in Vietnam on the use of technology, imo. I think it was more lack of planning and hubris than relying on technology that caused massive lost of lives on the American side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Oh, wait... The past decade of faux hero-worship might just be lip service? Who would have thought that the powers-that-be would be so capable of turning on a dime--going from pumping up the masses to revere our meat-for-the-grinder warriors in the service of their imperial foreign policy, and then to subject those very same troops to the same old, tired neoliberal economic prescriptions of austerity in the form of reduced benefits and broken promises? My country tis of thee, Sweet land of austerity, Go eat some beans. If you can't pay your bills, Remember your wartime thrills; You're part of Gen-er-ation Kill-- Go eat some beans. I like beans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 If you willing enlisted in the Armed Services how do you qualify that as sacrifice? I have plenty of friends of and family members who are in all branches of the Armed Services, they knowingly and willing signed up for active duty so explain to me how they deserve more government assistance than a tax paying civilian? The stereotype that every civilian is some government free loader who is scamming the government is just ridiculous, mainly because the majority of the work that most soldiers perform is also performed by civilians. For every hoo-rah shouting commando fighting terrorist in the Afghan mountains there are 10 mechanics, accountants, etc. doing jobs that everyday civilians perform as well. So if I go to work and pay my taxes, haven't I earned any government assistance that I might qualify for? I just don't understand that logic, that because you voluntarily join the armed services and choose a career that will take you away from your family and could possibly put you in a war zone than you are somehow sacrificing your life. If it was such a sacrifice then don't do it..there hasn't been a draft in this country for over 40 years. Like I said I have family members and close friends in the armed services so I do value and appreciate everyone who joins the armed services but please don't volunteer for something and tell me how much you are sacrificing on my behalf. Where did I say anything about tax paying civilians? If someone earns their way through life, pays taxes for X amount of years and then loses their job for whatever reason, they should be able to draw unemployment benefits until they get on their feet. They should be ENTITLED to what they have earned from what they have payed in. I'm all for social security, unemployment (when not abused) Medicare etc. those people have earned it and paid into the system. And yes, it is a voluntary service, right now. Partly because many people feel they have a debt to society and country they need to pay (something most in those forum could never understand) and a partly because there is good mix of people who don't have other good options- which is perfectly fine and a great way for people to give back to their country, have stability and eventually hopefully get an education. However- don't even fucking act like all of these people, for whatever reason they sign up, don't sacrifice greatly. I don't give a fuck what your political affiliation is, youre a sham of a human being to not understand the incredible sacrifice on all aspects of life the average military person bears- even in times of peace. Here's what people don't consider. So... Consider this. If the brave (or option less) people don't join the military- it will not be voluntary. It will be drafted, assigned, and enforced. Be fucking glad that there are people out there that offer their lives for this service- otherwise it is your thankless sons and daughters being sent off for an exceptionally difficult life (if they don't die) for the next four years. Thankless bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 The only good neoliberal is a dead neoliberal. Ah, progressive thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 Ah, progressive thought. Said someone who has no idea what a neoliberal is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Said someone who has no idea what a neoliberal is. TBH I rarely agree with anything Dish has to say, but that "line 'em up & shoot 'em" stuff really doesn't add much to the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 TBH I rarely agree with anything Dish has to say, but that "line 'em up & shoot 'em" stuff really doesn't add much to the conversation. 'meh these people have so much damage to this world that im not heart broken lets just say the bankers that have been showing up dead lately doesnt break my heart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted March 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 'meh these people have so much damage to this world that I'm not heart broken lets just say the bankers that have been showing up dead lately doesn't break my heart With the discussion of Neoliberal... Do you consider yourself a Neoliberal or an Ordoliberal or something else ? In other words, which liberal are you ? Interesting read on the formation of Neoliberal and Ordoliberal. Would not both have some benefits as well as drawbacks ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism To be "neoliberal" meant that a modern economic policy with State intervention is required. Two of the most prominent neoliberal politicians were Al Gore and Bill Clinton of the Democratic Party of the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism Wilhelm Röpke considered Ordoliberalism to be "liberal conservatism" While the Ordoliberal idea of a social market is similar to that of the third way social democracy advocated by the likes of the New Labour government (especially during the Premiership of Tony Blair), there are a few key differences. Whilst they both adhere to the idea of providing a moderate stance between socialism and capitalism, the Ordoliberal social market model often combines private enterprise with government regulation to establish fair competition (although Germany network industries are known to have been deregulated),[13] whereas advocates of the third way social democracy model have been known to oversee multiple economic deregulations. The third way social democracy model has also foreseen a clash of ideas regarding the welfare state's establishment, in comparison to the Ordoliberal's idea of a social market model being open to the benefits of social welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 I cant say I've ever heard of Ordoliberalism so I don't know if I can categorize myself as that or not. As far as Neoliberalism, from Wiki Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society.[1][2][3] I'm entirely against that, so whatever the opposite of that is in regard to type of liberal I am.. I'm pro-tarrif, pro-regulated markets, and anti-privatization. No idea what category that puts me in, although reading the first few paragraphs of the Ordoliberalism has me intrigued, not sure how this relates to Neoliberalism as the wiki says, unless they mean it is the anthesis of it, then yes I am, but again that's the first Ive heard of it so Im weary of putting myself in that category too quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.