Is the Military Budget a form of Welfare (hear me out)

[Heddi]

I have an ex-friend who is in the USAF, is 10000000% pro-war, calls herself a democrat but votes solidly republican (why she considers herself a democrat, I have no idea).

I have put actual quotes of hers (we were talking through email) in this thread so you can see her reasoning.

So one of the last times we were speaking, she railed on and on about how the no-good, lazy, shiftless assholes in this country are sucking off the government teat through welfare and WIC and all of those other frivilous government aid systems.

She doesn't believe in free or reduced cost healthcare for anyone ("If they valued their health, they would stay HEALTHY for fuck's sake!" "Why should *I* pay for someone's fucking heart medication if they're too fucking stupid to avoid getting fucking heart disease in the first fucking place?")

She doesn't believe in free or subsidized child care in any instance ("Don't have fucking kids if you can't fucking care for them and don't fucking come crying to me and expect MY tax fucking dollars to pay for your fucking sick kid") **btw, she has a 5 year old daughter**

She doesn't believe in job training

She doesn't believe in ANY programs that benefit people who are less fortunate than her oh-so-rich $40,000-before-taxes ass

She doesn't believe that the elderly or disabled should get SSI benefits because "if you don't have the fucking money to retire, then you shouldn't be able to fucking retire. If you don't have the fucking sense to save money then you shouldn't be able to run to the fucking government to bail your ass out"

Now here's the rub:

Both of her parents were military
She and her husband are in the military
She was born in a military hospital
Her husband was born in a military hospital
She was educated at military schools (in UK, Germany, Korea)
Her husband was educated at military schools (in Korea, japan)
She lives on base housing
Her daughter attends base daycare
Her daughter receives medical benefits through the military

So, I asked her how SHE was any different than the no-good lazy asses on welfare, since my tax dollars were supporting BOTH of them? Why was SHE entitled to free medical, but non-military wasn't? Why was HER daughter entitled to free childcare, but non-military aren't? Why is SHE given free job training, but no one else is?

She says that those are "benefits" of protecting our country. "What the fuck are you protecting???" I asked her about 10 times? She's not proctecting ANYTHING! NOTHING!

She was able to weasel out of a tour to Quatar a few years ago because her husband was in Korea and who's going to take care of her baby and oh oh oh! So I asked her how SHE could shirk out of her responsibilities (remember: Don't have fucking kids if you can't fucking care for them), but no one else can

She was able to weasel her way out of going to Korea for the same reason. Oh the hardship! Oh but I don't have my husband living with me! Oh but I don't make enough money while he's away! Oh but my daughter needs a parent! Oh oh oh!

She's more than happy to get her military retirement benefits (the only reason that she reinlisted to be in for 10+ years. She hates being USAF, but looooooves that fucking government teat that will feed HER ASS for years to come)

I'm not trying to be contrarian, but I really do NOT see the difference between the military as a form of welfare, and welfare as a form of welfare. Tax dollars supports one and tax dollars supports the other. But I don't understand why one (military) is more deserving than the other (poor people who are dependent upon finanical aid)

We rarely speak anymore because of this issue, as well as her hawkish pro-war stance which I thought was thoroughly hypocritical since she was so for the war, but did EVERYTHING in her power to avoid "protecting the country" (including faking a nervous breakdown so she would be forced to stay stateside for "psych reasons" instead of going to Iraq)

[Selatius]

1. Perhaps she needs to be stationed in between Fallujah and Baghdad

Time for a reality check, perhaps.

My friend has a buddy over there stationed in that area, and last week, he survived a roadside bomb. How? The poor souls in the humvee in front of him ran over the bomb first. No, he told me the humvee was not up-armored.

I don't wish death on anyone's head when I post this, but perhaps she should not judge people unless she walks a mile in their fucking shoes. It doesn't matter if it's a poor person sleeping under the highway overpass or if it's a soldier dying in some unknown land.

Tell her to pull her goddamn head out of her ass, and tell her to get off her fucking pedestal because she's a damnable hypocrite.

[Heddi]

4. She's very clueless

She considers herself as serving in combat because she did some training exercises where they used blanks instead of real rounds.

when she got married, I asked her what would happen if both her and her husband were stationed in different places if she had a kid. She said she'd never have a kid while both of them were in the service. Well 9 months and 1 day after her wedding, she gave birth to a beautiful daughter. Three days after she gave birth, her husband was sent to Japan for a year.

As soon as he came back, she went to Quatar for a year. Three weeks before she came back, her husband was sent back to Japan for 6 months or something. So the baby had to live with some distant relative they barely even knew.

Long story short---in this child's short life of only 5 years, she has ONLY Been around both of her parents for no more than 2 weeks at a time. My ex-friend is VERY confused as to why the daughter takes weeks, and sometimes MONTHS to warm up to the now-present parent after that parent has been gone for a year or two.

I told her "uh, she's only three years old. Her dad was gone for 1/3 of her life, then suddenly came back, then YOU left for a year. Her memory isn't that formed'

That's when she started whining about not being able to fulfill her committment re: being sent to another country---how will her daughter adapt?? While I think that's a worthy argument to make, it's not an argument that I think SHE should be able to make since she REINLISTED AFTER HER DAUGHTER WAS BORN----now she says that provisions should be made for her and her family to stay together as a 'family unit'---but woe the soldier who wants to go home after spending 2 years in Iraq---in her words "You knew what you were getting into when you signed the fucking dotted line"

Ex-Friend, thy name is hypocrite

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. This to me,

is a very basic form of HYPOCRISY! Pure and simple. I feel sorry for her daughter, BTW. Hope she grows up smarter and more in touch than your ex-friend, her mom. I am so disgusted with hypocrites!

[Heddi]

5. I feel sorry for the kid too

now, my ex friend and her husband are getting a divorce and I just feel SO BADLY for this little girl who is nothing more than a pawn in some greedy game played by her, and to an extent, her husband.

To them, she (the child) is nothing more than a dependent for which they can get more $$ from the military, more $$ from taxes, and a convenient excuse to shirk out of their committment to the US Military.

But then again, my friend is a terminal "victim type"---the whole world is against her and always has been. Nothing is her fault, she's at the mercy of everyone, and can never be blamed for anything. Why, she has no IDEA that being in the military meant she'd have committments that went above and beyond her family, that she'd have to make choices between career and family. But oh! that's not her fault...she was only 18 when she signed up (she's 29 now). She didn't even KNOW there was such a thing as college until she was 2 years in...and then it was too late to do anything. Oh boo hoo hoooooo

:puke:

[retnavyliberal]

28. For the record....

You get no additional $ for having children in the military. I know, I was in 21 Years

[Heddi]

31. According to her, she does

and she gets extra money on her income tax because of it too.

[retnavyliberal]

49. We all get

extra money on income tax for kids. It is called your number of dependant.

[whistle]

3. The military budget is welfare for the wealthy corporations...

...read here:

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[jjtss]

6. And when she retires...........

she will probably get a gov't job at a military installation. We call those people "DOUBLE DIPPERS'". The populate the Military-Industrial Industry and keep the performance levels down by driving out real needed talent. She is the reason that the missile defense system doesn't work. BTW extensive use of the "F" word is an indication of retarded intellect.

[Heddi]

9. Oh yeah. She's planning on retiring soon

(she doesn't believe in Stop-Losses. Says that's propaganda and lies being spread by "disgruntled 17 year old E1's who wanna go back home to mommy and daddy"). She either retired late last year, or is coming up for retirement this year.

Says she's SERIOUSLY considering being a contractor in, guess where, THE MIDDLE FUCKING EAST, because she can make $150,000 a year.

I asked her why she was against going to Iraq, SA, Quatar, etc, when she was obliged by the military, but more than willing to go as a civilian contractor (remember, she can't BEAR to leave her little excuse...I mean baby behind). She couldn't give me an answer that didn't consist of "homina homina homina"

[wadestock]

7. GREAT POST...

heartfelt and real.
You must realize why the military makes such strange bedfellows nowadays with the bad businessmen that rule this country now.

Don't get too upset about this.
The volunteer army is now being specifically manipulated in a very real political sense to come over to the agenda.

They are being worked at the top general level...geeze you've even seen this in the TV...and they are being promised more and more political connections.

Did you see the Republican convention with all the military in dress in the crowd? Check that...new regulations brought about specifically to allow the military to participate in such forums...and even hold voluntary political offices.

It's all great business for them....that's the downfall of this.
Cheap business...at the expense of our country. Ironic that the freepers were able to co-opt the military to do their evil bidding.

Sound like any other point in time you can think of?

[Postman]

8. a military existence IS socialism.

everything is provided for you.

Your job, your clothes, your food, your healthcare, your entertainment, family assistance, childcare, shopping priveledges.

Everything.

I should know. I was in the military myself.

If she thinks the private sector is soo damn great, why did she join?

She's not going to make the military a "career", is she? If so, she's the ultimate fucking welfare queen.

Do your time, get out, and go find work in the private sector instead of eating out of the public trough.

In fact, there shouldn't be a "retirement" for any military service.

[Heddi]

10. I asked her what she was going to do post-retirement

in the USAF she's a glorified paper pusher. She doesn't even possess basic secretarial skills.

"Oh I can get a job ANYWHERE"...not in this economy, baby "Oh, but people LOVE to hire people from the military. We have dedication" Uh. yeah. Right.

I reminded her that in the "real world" (ie non military):
1) you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all at any time
2) promotions are not guaranteed
3) raises are not guaranteed
4) 'working your way up the ladder' is BS spouted by high school guidance councelors
and, most importantly
5) You are not guaranteed to get health insurance at all. You may be required to pay all or a substantial part of it
and even MOST importantly
6) You don't get 30 days paid vacation per year

Her response to number 6 " Well, I've known people who are civilians and they say that Two and a half weeks is STANDARD across the board"

I had to laugh. and laugh. and laugh.

I've been to college (twice). I've worked every day since my 16th birthday (except for the past year while I've been in college). I have worked as a burger flipper to a sales rep making 10% commission on a $1,000,000-a-year desk. I have NEVER EVER EVER gotten 2.5 weeks PAID VACATION RIGHT OFF THE BAT. NEVER. EVER.

I told her that if you're LUCKY you can start acruiing vacation when you start---most places make you wait 3 or 6 or 12 months before you're elegible. THEN you're usually lucky to get 1 week AFTER your 1st year THEN work your way up and you don't get 2.5 weeks until you've been there for at least 2-3 years.

Oh no. I'm wrong. I mean, She's talked to people who work outside the military. :eyes:

She has no job skills, absolutely ZERO people skills. The one thing the military has trained her to do VERY well is to accept everything at face value, question nothing, and remain defiant in the face of knowledge.
About a year or so ago I was looking for work and had mentioned to her that in one month, I sent out nearly 200 resumes and filled out countless resumes for places like Subway, McDonalds, etc. but I hadn't gotten ANY callbacks.

"well, perhaps you should apply yourself better. Either that or be honest on your resume. There are jobs out there, you just need to find them. If you don't get a job, it's no one's fault but your own because if you wanted a job bad enough, you'd get one. THAT I know for sure"

ha ha haha

[Postman]

12. Sounds like she's perfect material for the Air Force.

anyone who thinks that heart disease's only cause is "not taking care of yourself" is completely clueless. Has she ever heard of genetic pre-disposition?

But that is just one instance of the many idiotic statements you have recounted. In fact, all of these rightwing, braindead reactionaries deserve the Commmander in Chief that they have.

[retnavyliberal]

29. Please tell me...

That your name "Postman" does not mean you work for the US Postal service after saying all that about a military you were in and the drive to work in the public sector?

[qwghlmian]

11. If (apparently) your criteria for something to be

welfare is that it is supported by tax dollars, then every government job is "welfare", every policeman is on "welfare", every fireman, and certainly every politician.

[Postman]

14. Its called socialism. A gov't check as income is socialism.

It's okay, really, for people who need it.

I have a problem with rich corporations who don't need it collecting my tax dollars.

[qwghlmian]

15. Is police force "socialism"? How about paying politicians

a salary - is that "socialism"?

[Postman]

18. they are civil servants....

whose salary comes from tax dollars.


The fact that they receive tax money for their occupation is similar to a socialistic existence.

Its not complete socialism.

[qwghlmian]

22. so it all depends how you define "socialism".

I don't define it that way. You do. Since our basic definitions are not compatible, end of argument.

[Heddi]

19. Of course the police force is socialsm

we all pay into it (salaries, department funds, etc) regardless of whether or not we'll ever use the service.

Same with fire departments, schools, etc. I have no children, yet a portion of my property taxes funds schools. It doesn't matter that I'll never use a public school. I'm paying into it for the greater good of all.

Libertarians, on the other hand, believe that you should only pay for schools if you have a child that attends them, you should only pay for fire service if your house burns down, and that a bill should be submitted to you every time you call 9/11. And if you can't afford to pay the fireman, then your house burns to the ground. If you can't afford to pay for a policeman to come to your house then you get robbed of all of your worldy possessions (or killed, or raped, etc).

BTW--I'm a democratic socialist. I think MORE money should be spent to help those less fortunate and LESS money into the military coffers. I think you have a stronger nation not JUST with a well-trained military, but with a population that is fully educated, fully employed, and fully insured with regards to medication and medical coverage. You can't have a strong country when 50 million people don't have health insurance. You can't have a strong country when so many are without jobs. You can't have a strong country when you have children whose parents can't afford school supplies, clothing, or food.

Military Might shouldn't be our sole focus for a strong homeland.

[qwghlmian]

20. Fine - if you think that policemen's salaries/benefits are "welfare"

then military is on "welfare" as well.

If you don't think that policemen salaries/benefits are "welfare" but military salaries/benefits are, explain the difference.

[Heddi]

21. Of course I think the military is welfare

MY EX-FRIEND IS THE ONE WHO DOES NOT

Please re-read the original post and the followup posts I've made. I have NO problem whatsoever with money being spent on necesssary things. I think the military is necessary, and I think providing financial assistance to those in need is necesary as well.

I don't think, however, that ONE group (the military) is more DESERVING than another (underserved individuals, those living in poverty, etc)

On edit. It's obvious you didn't read the post you just replied to, otherwise you would have seen this glaring statement:

I think MORE money should be spent to help those less fortunate and LESS money into the military coffers. I think you have a stronger nation not JUST with a well-trained military, but with a population that is fully educated, fully employed, and fully insured with regards to medication and medical coverage. You can't have a strong country when 50 million people don't have health insurance. You can't have a strong country when so many are without jobs. You can't have a strong country when you have children whose parents can't afford school supplies, clothing, or food.

[qwghlmian]

23. I asked you if policemen's salaries/benefits are

"welfare" as well. You did not answer.

[Heddi]

24. Yes I did answer

Again, see the above post
Of course the police force is socialsm



we all pay into it (salaries, department funds, etc) regardless of whether or not we'll ever use the service.

Same with fire departments, schools, etc. I have no children, yet a portion of my property taxes funds schools. It doesn't matter that I'll never use a public school. I'm paying into it for the greater good of all.

Based on the current economic theory our country subscribes to (capitalism), anything that is paid out is essentially welfare. Of course, it's not labeled as such. But that's because welfare is such a dirty word---conjures up images of crack-smoking women having babies every 9 months, living high on the hog, eating foie grois and caviar while they suck off the government teat, etc.

Maybe this is your source of contention: I don't see welfare as a bad thing It's not a bad word in my vocabulary.

To me, any money paid for social services (be they food stamps, or police funds, or schools, or road repairs) is welfare. That doesn't mean it's a BAD thing. It just means that the whole of society should provide, through tax dollars, for the greater good. I'll never use food stamps, but it's for the greater good to have fewer homeless people in my city. It's for the greater good for there to be fewer people living in poverty. IT's for the greater good that people have access to medical services.

It's for the greater good that we have a well trained and well funded police force. It's for the greater good that we have a well trained and well funded military.

But we obviously DON'T have a well-funded military since there are still HumVee's without proper armour, soldiers without proper training and supplies, veterans without proper benefits (remember: the "Military" (corporation) is FUNDED WELL, not necessarily well-funded (individual level)).

So yes, they are welfare. Of course, you'll never hear a REPUBLICAN say that. They'll call it a subsidy or some other code word for "NOT WELFARE'

[qwghlmian]

27. Again, you avoided the question -

I did not ask you if police force is socialism. I asked you if policemen's salaries/benefits are "welfare". Note: I did not say "police funds". I asked specifically about policemen's salaries and benefits.

See, you have this funny definition of "welfare". If you define it as "anything that comes from tax dollars" then everybody is on welfare. The definition becomes so broad as to be meaningless.

My definition of "welfare" is "unearned disbursement of tax money". Under that definition, neither military nor police force are on "welfare".

[Heddi]

35. I thought when I said "funds"

that it implied ALL funds for those services---salary, benefits, cars, stations, etc.

I'm happy you have your defintion of welfare. Bully for you.

And you say "unearned" distribution of tax money. Does someone who falls below the povery line and needs food stamps mean that they haven't earned it? Do they suddenly 'earn' it if they worked for the previous 50 years and suddenly became unemployed due to illness or injury?

And according to your definition, how do the police or military 'earn' disbursement of tax dollars? Are they more worthy of tax dollars than children of poor parents? Than elderly who have to rely on social programs for their medication?

Why is it "more" okay for SERVICES to rely on the government (read: tax dollars) for payment than it is for PEOPLE to rely on the government for payment? Why are the services 'earned' but the people are 'unearned'?

And the term is not so broad as to become meaningless. Anyone or anything that is supported by my tax dollars is Welfare. Again, I don't have a negative connotation associated with the word. You apparently do

[qwghlmian]

39. If you don't understand what "earned" is,

there really isn't much to talk about, is there.

"Earned" means you work for it. If you are an employee, you are assigned a task or several tasks by your supervisor, you perform them, you get paid. If you are self-employed, you sell your services or goods to other people and get paid. It really is not a hard concept to grasp. Now apply it to tax money disbursement. If you are employed by the government and work for its money, it is "earned". If you are not employed by the government, but still get money from it, it is "unearned". This is not rocket science.

[Heddi]

42. But is it still 'unearned'

if you worked for say, 10 years, full time, paying taxes. You get injured. You become ill. You get laid off....you suddenly qualify for financial aid in the form of food stamps & welfare. Why is that "unearned"? They PAID into the system for 10 years. They didn't need it then. THey need it now. By certain logic, they have "earned" their welfare benefits by the fact that they paid into the system for 10 years and now they need those benefits.

Are you anti-welfare? I'm sensing a hostility towards people who (whether by your definition of 'earned' or mine) rely on the government for financial assistance if they need it?

[qwghlmian]

43. You sense wrong -

there are two cases. One is of a person who has paid the "insurance premium" type of payment to the government while working (like FICA) and is entitled to SSI payments if disabled etc. - that is NOT welfare. That is insurance that was paid for. Another is a person who did not pay FICA, yet gets disabled, and is supported by the government (because we do not allow people to starve). That is welfare.

What I dislike is fuzzy logic and unclear definitions, as you may have noticed. And your example does not have anything to do with your original post, where you intimated that people who are carreer military are on "welfare". That is a huge stretch of the term and is unwarranted.

[jody]

13. What is your definition of welfare?

Welfare is often used to mean "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need."

What is not added is that welfare frequently means financial aid without anything received in return except for the satisfaction of doing good in a moral sense.

If you use welfare to mean financial aid that exceeds things received in return, e.g loans to minority small businesses or farmers, then you have a different situation.

In the case of the military, its primary goal is to prevent another nation from conquering the U.S. and imposing its will upon us. So far, the military has been successful.

In that context, if you wish to argue that specific programs have been used to reward special interests and those programs have zero military value, then you must prove that case.

In some cases weapon systems have capabilities that exceed reasonable military needs or in retrospect they are less useful than alternative systems. Such findings are often wrong in hindsight but reasonable in context when the decision was made.

You might want to browse current DoD debates such as USAF's desire to have 381 of its F/A-22 Raptors but Rumsfeld wants to limit production to 180. That's just one example of numerous policy and budget debates underway all the time in DoD and Congress. Only time will tell which number of F/A-22s is wrong or perhaps some other number.
:shrug:

[Postman]

16. Your case for the military is incorrect.

Its primary goal is not to prevent another nation from conquering the U.S....That really hasn't been the mission since the War of 1812.

Ever since the late 1890's the miltary's mission has been to protect private interests passed off as national interest

[jody]

34. That's your opinion and not supported by the facts. n/t

[Karenina]

44. Read Smedley Butler

"War is a Racket"

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

[jody]

46. I'm a member of the Smedley Butler Society and very familiar with

his thoughts. Nonetheless, our military's role is very clear under our Constitution and our representatives in congress have funded military programs and use of force.

I'm fairly confident I could find a government program that you champion as part of a minority of our society and the rest of society does not support. Is it fair for taxpayer dollars to pay for that program?

How is that any different from using taxpayer dollars to pay for military forces to defend international assets that benefit the one-half percent of Americans who own over forty percent of our financial wealth?

:shrug:

[Postman]

50. You haven't a clue.

What role did the Constitution play in the Panama Invasion back in 1989? Where was the declaration of war from Congress?

The Constitution may lay out the purpose of the military. That doesn't necessarily mean the military has been used "Constitutionally" or justifiably since 1789.

[jody]

53. Why do you judge me when you don't know me or my qualifications?

In fact, the military "has been used 'Constitutionally' or justifiably since 1789" in spite of your opinion or mine.

Please cite a single instance when the majority of congress has sent a resolution to a president condemning him for violating the constitution by using the military or a bill overriding a presidential decision to use the military.

Whether you or I disagree with a presidential action does not negate the simple fact that congress, often passive and complacent in my opinion, has supported presidents in their use of our military. In that simple sense, every presidential action using our military has been constitutional.

That's just the way things have been and will probably continue to be.

Your turn now. :shrug:

[Heddi]

17. I don't really know what I consider welfare to be

but SHE is the one that thinks that SHE (and only those who are in her certain job field) are the ONLY PEOPLE who should be entitled to free health care, free child care, free job training, free this, free that.

I don't care one whit who gets what. I think that social welfare programs (free lunch program, breakfast in schools, WIC, welfare payments, foodstamps, Section 8 housing, child-care subsidies) should be expanded, more aggressively funded, and encoporate MORE people who need the services but hover slightly above the poverty guidelines.

I don't have a problem with the benefits that come with being in the military either.

However HER argument is that SHE is deservant of free programs while other people who work JUST as hard as she does, who value their children JUST as much as she does should NOT be entitled to ANY social programs at all.

My argument with her is that tax dollars fund both the military AND welfare programs. They both aid and benefit those who get them. Not everyone who is allowed to use the services necessarily 'needs' or 'deserves' the aid provided for them, but we still give to all aside from the indiscretion of a few.

She can get all the free benefits that she wants. I draw the line at her hypocracy that somehow SHE is more entitled than someone who is POOR and who NEEDS these services---she could very well buy her own home, she chooses to use the benefit of base housing. She could very well afford to pay for her own childcare, but she chooses the benefit of base childcare. By her own admission, she's just as "lazy assed" as those on welfare that she derides. She doesn't need it, her survival isn't dependent upon it, but she uses the benefits anyway, yet wants to remove ALL social programs that aren't military or service based. Because THOSE people don't deserve it. THEY should be healthy. THEY shouldn't have kids, etc etc.

SHE is the one who has an issue with what welfare is. Not me.

[Blue Wally]

26. Military benefits

Military benefits, like most "fringe" benefits often are the result of a decision made long ago that may or may not have current justification.

Medical benefits in the auto industry are a result of WWII. Prior to that, no companies offered employee health benefits. During WWII, there was wage and price stabilization. The auto unions had a limit on the wage increase that they could negotiate. As a substitute, they asked for free health care.

Military medical care also came about rather innocently. Military units had surgeons to care for the wounded in battle and for the sick in both peace and war. At the isolated frontier posts, the unit surgeon also cared for the wives and children of the soldiers. This expanded to be the current military health system. To some extent, the military health system doesn't "cost" the military because a medical streucture is required to care for combat casualties so a significant part of the military health system must be considered as a "sunk cost".

Military commissaries also have their origins in the frontier posts. Military families at the post were permitted to buy ration items from the post subsistence officer. This evolved into the commissary system we know today.

The costs of all of these "benefits" to include medical care, commissaries, post exchanges, military police protection, and military retirement are figured in when congress establishes military pay rates. These benefits are not guaranteed. Congress could vote tomorrow to close every single military commissary or to close the stateside military health facilities.

[jody]

37. I'm not sure what you mean by "free benefits". Benefits to military

personnel and their dependents are not free, they are part of the entire pay package for military service. I believe current pay packages for military personnel lag those of civilians in comparable positions.

[Heddi]

41. She certainly gets alot more benefits than I ever did

as a private sector employee.

She has guaranteed health insurance
she has guaranteed child care
she has guaranteed housing
she has guaranteed 'leave' (vacation) every year
she has guaranteed pension when she retires

I have never gotten ANY of that. I've not known ANYONE who has gotten any benefits like that for a job that wasn't CEO or management based

And it's not like she's living on a poor-man's salary either. She's never been to college, the only job skills she has is using Excel and putting papers that were in one basket into another basket and then putting those papers into a third basket.

She currently makes $55k a year (according to her...she may be lying...what else would be new).

Her husband on the other hand is a diesel mechanic and he had to go to school for that, and I would say that his salary is at least comparable to what his skillset is. According to her, he makes about $50k a year, but again....she's not a really truthful person to begin with....

Neither are officers (or even close to it). I applaud these benefits as being part of her pay package, but again, I have issue with HER issue that she is more deserving of these benefits than a single working mother living in Section 8 housing, or the child of a poor family who needs free lunch program to provide the only meal they get during the day.

I'm not anti-military. I'm anti-her-way-of-thinking.

[jody]

45. I understand but her military pay includes those benefits. If pay

and the included benefits are so important, why didn't you pursue a military career? :shrug:

You say:
She has guaranteed health insurance NOT SO
she has guaranteed child care NOT SO
she has guaranteed housing NOT SO
she has guaranteed 'leave' (vacation) every year NOT SO
she has guaranteed pension when she retires NOT SO

Each of those items which you assert are guaranteed continue at the whelm of congress and they have all eroded in recent years. Moreover as many troops have found out, they can't even get out or retire because of Bush's war in Iraq. Many people believe that involuntary service is akin to slavery but that's the negative part of military life.

If you are correct that she and her husband are active duty,then both of them could be sent at the same time to Iraq or elsewhere leaving their children to the care of someone else.

Would you put up with that little inconvenience for her "guaranteed" benefits?

There are many civilian positions today with pay packages that are better than the military. That's why so many people get out of the military after a few years.

[cattleman22]

52. Now it just sounds like you are jealous and just ranting because of that.

[cattleman22]

51. How is it free healthcare if she has to work to earn it?

Your rant seems more about claiming that peoplke in the military do no work and thus their pay is really welfare and not a salary with specific benefits.

[morningglory]

25. Ya wanna see some welfare-whiners? Wait till 150,000 g.i.'s

get dumped out of Iraq into this wonderful, firing-on-all-cylinders economy. They will be pi**ed. That is what happened to Timothy McVeigh. He was a top tank commander, got downsized into PoppyBush's great economy, where tank commanders were not in great demand. He exploded with anger at the mere thought of working at McDonald's. I'd like to see your friend try to make it on this economy like the rest of us.

[Grey Ranks]

30. YES!

This is something I have discussed many times at work, I am in the military. The military is a giant social welfare program. Generally poor uneducated people being paid without having to provide any real results, other than doing the inane things those over them want them to.

Not to mention the number of people who have grown completely dependent on the military, either because of financial reasons, their inability to cope with real life, or their incompetence. The military is disposable welfare.

[qwghlmian]

32. LOL -

"Generally poor uneducated people being paid without having to provide any real results, other than doing the inane things those over them want them to.". Have you ever read any Dilbert books? Change "poor uneducated" to "somewhat reasonably paid educated" in your sentence, and you have described almost every IT or engineering department in a big corporation.

[retnavyliberal]

48. Which are you?

Poor? Uneducated? Not earning your pay? Unable to cope? Incompetent?

It bugs me that you are collecting your "welfare" pay and are likely taking advantage of military "welfare" programs like college Tuition Assistance, and I am sure you will use your GI bill, but will bad mouth what you take advantage of.

Charming.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Grey Ranks]

36. That is funny

I might actually donate now.

[Heddi]

38. He just wants some welfare

Lazy ass robot...GO OUT AND GET A REAL JOB, YA BUM

:)

Sigh...them damn robots...sucking off the government teat. I'll tell ya...lazy bums the whole fuckin' LOT of them.

fuckin' robot welfare queens...er...kings...

uh, does grovelbot have a gender?

[lonestarnot]

40. MOST ASSUREDLY AND GOOD CALL! n/t

[lostinacause]

47. The reason why they are different

Regardless if you are "pro-war" or "anti-war" the military provides a service. Your 'friend's' abuse of the system is similar to someone abusing their place at a job. Unfortunately she won't get fired because of the inability for the military to react to people who abuse the system.

[sendero]

54. Your friend...

... is a heartless moron. Most people's health is determined more by their genetics than anything else. I hate to wish ill of folks, but maybe she'll get a lesson down the road when she finds out that even with a "healthy" lifestyle one can be struck down with serious illness.

[Booster]

55. This seems to be part of the Republican agenda; practically force

the poor and downtroded young people in America to join the military, since under Bush this is the only way they can get ahead, and to Bush and the Republicans, the poor are disposable; they're not worth anything to them. A good example is Jessica Lynch, who joined the service so she could get an education, which was almost impossible for her family to afford. I admire her because she wouldn't go along with the lies and eventually spoke out - late, yes, but courageous non the less. Tyranny is ugly in so many ways, and we are certainly headed in that direction.