The military hasn't defended the country since ww2, which denies the word employment. Standing by in case of war under contract and being subsidized by the public to do so is not a circumstance comparable to the private sector. The parallel would be identifying a welfare recipient adhering to civil obedience while receiving 100% public subsidy including training or retraining as employed. Both are on the public teat, neither makes any societal economic contribution. Yet some of us deny health care to children being publicly funded because they're not deserving? That's quite a value system.

Your concept of what the military does - namely that the military is only working when defending the country - is defective on it's face. There are many civilian jobs which comparable situations.

Take, for example, the paramedic working for a private sector 911 provider. If said paramedic is at the station participating in a training drill, is he not working? If we apply your standard above, the answer would have to be no.

Your parallel falls flat because the person on public subsidy in the real world is not required to provide services back to the government, whereas a military member is.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

This is fabulous, in the upcoming election, the Democrats are for medical care for sick children, whereas the Republicans are solidly on the side of the disease.

Good Imagery.

It seems the party of symbolism has lost their edge, this would never have happened with Lee Atwater or Karl Rove, imagine the people who sacrificed the lives of thousands of Americans to get that perfect shot of Bush in the flight suit, and that one of Bush, in the perfect golden light, under the Mission Accomplished banner, these guys used to be great at symbolism, now the image of the GOP is a corrupt bastard, who hates children, except for sex.
Nice, hold that thought and let's have an election.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Why aren't civilians worthy of this kind of contract? Every person that pays taxes is working for the government and is working to manifest the money that is necessary to finance the military.

The variable that you fail to take into account is that all of the money for the government originally comes from the taxpayer. The military does not generate their own income. They are totally reliant on the taxpayer for their very existence. The military demands that the taxpayer finance:

-infrastructure
-tools
-training
-food
-health care

Why should they be entitled to all of that, yet the very people whose money they are taking aren't? That's a pretty obvious double-standard.


So what? I've already addressed this. There are plenty of honourable civilian jobs that are dangerous and underpaid. Without these civilians being killed and injured on the job, the military wouldn't exist because they are totally dependent on the taxpayer dollar.

Why is the military afforded these special benefits that other low-paying, dangerous civilian jobs aren't? According to Steve and a few other posters on this thread, those people are responsible for their own choices and if they can't afford health care for their family then they should make better choices and change jobs. Yet people like Steve consciously chose to go to the military where they accepted all of the benefits that they believe others aren't entitled to.

That is hypocrisy.

What you are describing is a communistic society, where everything is owned by "the people". America does not work that way. Once money is paid for taxes, it ceases to be the taxpayers money and is now the money of the federal government. Don't worry, even most Americans make that mistake. How the government dispenses that money is entirely up to them, as laid out in the Constitution. And members of the military are not entitled to jack. Entitled implies they recieve money out of course, whereas in reality they perform servies in exhange for money and benefits.


Agreed, there are plenty of dangerous civilian jobs. However, if you have an issue with how they are paid the benefits they may or may not recieve, you need to take it up with their employer. That is not the job of the Federal Government.

Indeed. If a civilian doesn't like the benefits or pay they recieve, they should find another job. However, as I have pointed out, the US Government has the ability to provide added incentives to their employees.

Steve probably (like myself) doesn't believe in giving people something for nothing, which is what you are suggesting. As I have said before, military members perform a service, and are compensated for that service just like any other working citizen. Different companies offer different pay and different benefits; the US Government is no different when it comes to their employees.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Please identify a civilian job offering full material subsidy, monetary compensation, education and retirement using public funds without making an economic contribution.

All 911 sub-contractor responders in my area other than LE are private entites. Our county fire and ambulance services are available only by private subscription, which is far less expensive than publicly funded districts and they still show a profit and contribute to the economy. The line people are paid hourly wages for when they're on-duty or in training, but not 24/7/365.

Of course they are. It doesn't sound like you have much experience with the disadvantaged. Talk to someone on public assistance to understand the hoops they're required to jump through in justifying the bureaucratic process. Training to become an assembly worker or such at government expense is no different than being trained to operate a weapons system or such at government expense. Neither makes any economic contribution nor are there civilian positions available for either function but both are subsidized by public money, so what's the difference?

You deliberately ignore the quid pro quo between the military and the taxpayer. The military demands that even low income earners pay into the system so that they can exist. That same low income earner is expected to still pay for their own food, shelter and health care as well as their family's.

If the system was fair, shouldn't the government either:

A) not collect tax from those people, or collect a much lower rate of tax so that they can afford food, shelter and health care

or

B) continue to collect taxes from them but allow them access to the benefits that the military receives: food, shelter, training, health care

In the end, it should be a symbiotic relationship where both sides of the equation are afforded equal benefits.


They pay taxes. Fine. Do they pay a health care premium? Do they still have access to free food and subsidized shelter? Yep. So why aren't those same benefits available to all working, taxpaying citizens? Why is the military special?



This definition doesn't apply to the military? How so?

I love stupid little posts like this.

So, you had to learn Word and Excel on your own? Wow; that's quite an accomplishment. I know there are a lot of resources where one can go to learn those programs.

I was a Mine Warfare specialist in the Navy. Perhaps you could direct me to where I'd be able to pick up the requisite knowledge, within the civilian sector, to learn how to do that job...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

The only possible purpose would be that he was simply begging to be reported for it.

I've taken care of that...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

There are resources where one can go and learn private sector skills because the private sector is expected to educate their own post-secondary education on their own dime.

Whereas, individuals like yourself choose things that are only supported by the taxpayer from training to food to shelter to health care, straight through to retirement and then deny others the same benefit.

So, if a job needs to be performed, and the only place to get that training is from the government, that job shouldn't be done because only the government can provide that training?

And, again, I deny nothing. Anyone who wants the things I have can go ahead and do exactly what I have done, then they can have those things, too.

You, however, want people to get things for no other reason thatn they sit on their ass all day and do nothing.

Well, that's the Canadian mentality, I suppose...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Precisely my point. The military behaves as a sort of socialist/communist entity. That would make military personnel like Steve volunteer socialists. So then how can they criticize others for supporting socialist policies?

I also think it's a bit dangerous to distinguish between the people's money and the government's money. The government is supposed to be the will of the people manifested into policy. Except in the U.S., the government manifests the will of the corporate and military machine at the expense of the taxpayer.


I am not suggesting giving people something for nothing. The average civilian is expected to work and pay taxes so that the government can exist. The government and the military demand that they be finance by working civilians.

The fact remains, that working civilians pay into the system for years. Asking to receive the same benefits, albeit temporarily, in return while they happen to be struggling is only asking for the same benefits that the government affords itself. Except that the government spends everyone else's money and their benefits are permanent.

Why did you omit the second part of my paragraph?

And you seem to not understand the American system of government. The Government here in America is not there to see the will of the people manifested into policy. It was never designed to do that. It is supposed to safeguard the freedoms and liberties of Americans as laid out in the Constitution. What you are suggesting is mob rule.

Yes you are. In America nothing is expected of anyone. You have a choice in whatever you do. If you choose not to work, you don't pay taxes. You have that choice. Good luck living, if you choose that path.

What is so hard to understand about this? When you pay taxes, that money is not longer yours; it was never "the peoples". I don't know what fantasy world you are living in. Again, US Military members perform a service for the United States Government and are compensated. The average US Citizen performs no service.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Since when did the will of the people (that little thing called voting) become "mob rule"?
And yes, it is the goverments job to carry out the laws and such voted on by the people. Where is it you can find that states it is not?



What a ridiculous statement.



What part of "we the people" and " promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" seem to confuse you?