Minorities vs entitlements

[golfournut]

Not all vets are "volunteers". There are MILLIONS of us running around who were given a VERY narrow choice, serve, run to Canada like a coward or go to jail. Those my age were subject to an ACTIVE DRAFT. We were REQUIRED, BY LAW, to serve. You could do that by getting drafted or "volunteering" to beat the draft.

It really matters not, IF you put your life on the line for this country, and every vet did whether they were in combat or not, you should NOT be mistreated as MANY vets are. It is just wrong.

Even though you were drafted, your rights to benefits per contract as mine are for enlisting. Neither should be denied, you serve you should get what was promised and have the same protections if the laws in place as civilians. Civilians get to scream discrimination and all that crap and the lawyers are quick to jump on them for their business. Where is our justice?

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[golfournut]

Layout, I understand that but that's not the target demographic I am refering to.

Golf,
I understand the issue and as I have seen a lot of the crap first hand, I believe that the only solution is to fight for the enforcement of those laws. I as a citizen would rather put the money we use for social programs into supporting the combat vets but I, like you are only single people who voice their opinions. My senator is head of the Arm Forces committee and has done a very poor job with VA issues, he seems to be able to fix Washington taxi issues and try to arbitrate the Detroit Symphony strike but doesn't seem to give a crap about what happens at the VA in Ann Arbor of Detroit and fails to address issues from his constituents about Vet healthcare etc.

With that said I have yet to see an organization that is there for an exclusive purpose of garnering support by voters to force the federal government to get the laws enforce, and sadly I don't see a lot of vets themselves too concern about it until it happens to them.

That is exactly my point. Until ALL vets are classified as a minority group, we just stand as individuals. But if we get the classification then we are one.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[layoutshooter]

Even though you were drafted, your rights to benefits per contract as mine are for enlisting. Neither should be denied, you serve you should get what was promised and have the same protections if the laws in place as civilians. Civilians get to scream discrimination and all that crap and the lawyers are quick to jump on them for their business. Where is our justice?

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

Vets in this country are treated like garbage. Vets were promised certain benefits in return for their service and in many cases those benefits are now being denied. Yes, vets often seem to "get" more than those who did not serve, why? They were promised that they would receive those benefits. A contract was signed. Those who did NOT serve did NOT sign that contract don't receive those benefits. In other words, those who EARN them should have them, those who did not, should not.

 

[golfournut]

I don't think you understood what I meant. When my age group came home the WWII vets looked on us as second class vets. They often flat out ignored us at Legions and VFW's etc. They offered little help to those who needed help with "issues" from their service.

It is FAR different these days. Viet Nam era vets have been going out of their way to help today's vets. One of the first places a young vet with problems is set is to a group like the Viet Nam Disabled Vets. That is why so many hunt with me, my nephew "encouraged" them to come up so we could talk.

I would, and will, do FAR more if I ever change careers.

I go to the VA 3-4 times a year. The one in Ann Arbor. There are all ages there but most are older. Lot's of Korean and Viet Nam vets. Fewer and fewer, sadly, WWII vets and , again sadly, more and more younger ones. I wish we had no need for a military. So many ruined lives.

Because of my broken leg, I go to the VA Hospital here in Baltimore once every two weeks. At that Lo-cal they are all there. All wars, men and women from all walks of life. From a previous thread I started, the new young vets only get 10 years of VA medical from date of discharge unless a service connected disability. IMO, that's wrong.

Did you know, from Vietnam back, there is a pension available for veterans for NON service connected disabilities? Yet very few know about it, worse yet, very very few have applied.
Now when a vet is first enlisted into the VA medical system, all must go through an orientation. It is there that the pension is brought out to the front. Yet very little apply. Why? A recent post card pole at the VA I go to showed this result.
My injury/disability didn't happen while I was in. I don't want something I didn't earn and I don't want to take away from a brother that may need it!

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[layoutshooter]

Try getting that pension. First off, it is ALMOST nothing. Second, it is next to impossible to get a pension for service connected injury these days. I have been trying for more than 40 years and STILL have no final determination. The army has at least admitted that my injuries ARE service connected.

 

[golfournut]

By the way Layout, even tho you were drafted, you did become a volunteer to your brothers in arms.
That, in my book makes you a volunteer and we are all the same. Sitting in a foxhole with your buddy under fire, didn't make a difference if drafted or enlisted. We watched out for each other.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[layoutshooter]

By the way Layout, even tho you were drafted, you did become a volunteer to your brothers in arms.
That, in my book makes you a volunteer and we are all the same. Sitting in a foxhole with your buddy under fire, didn't make a difference if drafted or enlisted. We watched out for each other.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

I enlisted to "avoid" the draft. That makes me a "draft dodger"!! I never saw combat but I am a vet as all others who served are. I did the job that was mine to do to the best of my ability. I served with pride, honor and integrity. I ask nothing that I did not earn.

 

[Pilgrim]

I think that one of the main reasons the vets get shortchanged is that so few of our Senators and Congressmen - and especially that past few presidents - have no active duty military experience. H.W. Bush was the last president to have seen combat. Two of the past three presidents have blatantly expressed their contempt for the military, and the current one has promised to considerably weaken our military strength (as his two Democrat predecessors did in practice). Considering there is no draft any more, there's not much chance that political candidates will comprise a significant percentage of our representatives. But those vets that do run for office should be given special consideration.

 

[golfournut]

I think that one of the main reasons the vets get shortchanged is that so few of our Senators and Congressmen - and especially that past few presidents - have no active duty military experience. H.W. Bush was the last president to have seen combat. Two of the past three presidents have blatantly expressed their contempt for the military, and the current one has promised to considerably weaken our military strength (as his two Democrat predecessors did in practice). Considering there is no draft any more, there's not much chance that political candidates will comprise a significant percentage of our representatives. But those vets that do run for office should be given special consideration.

I totally agree. Should be some sort of requirement for US public office. How can you conduct military business when you know absolutely nothing about it.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[layoutshooter]

I totally agree. Should be some sort of requirement for US public office. How can you conduct military business when you know absolutely nothing about it.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

While I believe that military service SHOULD be required for public office the Constitution does not ask for it. MAYBE we should have an "informal point system" to help vet candidates. Our news people will NOT vet candidates fairly, maybe a point system could help.

Points for military service, business experience, firefighting, emergency medical experience, and lastly, formal education. REAL LIFE experience is worth DOUBLE what books teach.

There is not many things more useless than a ivy league education. The last several presidents prove that. How much more wrong can they get? Theory is one thing, REALITY is another thing altogether.

 

[Dabus1952]

Two things I had to do when I turned 18 registered for the draft and registered to vote. Never have missed a major election .When I was growing up Red white and Blue ran thru your blood and the rest ran to Canada.

 

[greg334]

You guys all sound like you want to gut the constitution to serve a oblique purpose.

The qualifications for any office shouldn't be based on what a person did or some silly point system but how he will act as a representative to the people who elect him. It is up to the people who elect the person to decide, nothing else should matter.

THIS is a oligarchy, nothing less. Very dangerous and leads to all kinds of abuse - including leading up to a dictatorship.

I do not put much into the premise that someone has to be part of something to care about it. This especially true for the military where a large number of people were part of it at one time and now hold office but don't do much to change it or make it better.

Sadly it comes down to the fact that much of the country does not care, it is reflected in the way the system is and how people are treated within the system. If we want to change it, and I do, then people need to get together and make it a point to talk about the issues and force changes.

 

[layoutshooter]

The point system is something the I use. I assign values to experience. School is the lowest value. Without practical usage education is only theory. I use it as a vetting process. Not that it has done much good with the lack of quality candidates we see.

Obama has a TON of education and cannot make a decision. One thing that combat teaches is how to make a decision quickly. So does working in emergency medicine or firefighting. We need decision makers, leaders who have some clue as to what is going on. Obama seems lost. He brought zero useful decision making experience into a job that require exactly that.

I did NOT mean a required point system. I do, however, think that people be looking at candidates a lot differently than they are. Party should be the LAST thing you look at. I want to know what the person that I hire is bringing to the table. Obama brought NOTHING. Just an entry level resume. NO practical experience what so ever and is shows.

 

[golfournut]

You guys all sound like you want to gut the constitution to serve a oblique purpose.

The qualifications for any office shouldn't be based on what a person did or some silly point system but how he will act as a representative to the people who elect him. It is up to the people who elect the person to decide, nothing else should matter.

THIS is a oligarchy, nothing less. Very dangerous and leads to all kinds of abuse - including leading up to a dictatorship.

I do not put much into the premise that someone has to be part of something to care about it. This especially true for the military where a large number of people were part of it at one time and now hold office but don't do much to change it or make it better.

Sadly it comes down to the fact that much of the country does not care, it is reflected in the way the system is and how people are treated within the system. If we want to change it, and I do, then people need to get together and make it a point to talk about the issues and force changes.

As I am sure your well aware, what issues a candidate runs on aren't necessarily what they follow thru on once elected. There is no crystal ball that will show you how a candidate will be once un office.
I haven't read any mention of "gutting" the constitution. I did mention making it a prerequisite for US office to have served in the military. That can be done with an amendment.
You said "the qualifications for any office shouldn't be based on what a person did". Well there are required qualifications in place already for Federal office like a 4 year college degree. Adding military service to that or at the very least for a Presidential Candidate would not be difficult at all. The difficulty is finding someone with military service that wants to run since less than 2% of the population serve.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[layoutshooter]

A degree in what? Basket weaving? What about the ability to make a decision? What degree out there applies to the job of president? What would be a good degree? What would be useless? Yeah, I know, no degree is useless. A degree without experience to back it up and we end up with what we have been getting. Nothing of value.

 

[golfournut]

A degree in what? Basket weaving? What about the ability to make a decision? What degree out there applies to the job of president? What would be a good degree? What would be useless? Yeah, I know, no degree is useless. A degree without experience to back it up and we end up with what we have been getting. Nothing of value.

I agree. That is a requirement. Would I vote for a candidate fresh out of college with a crisp new diploma? Heck no. I want to see some experience. The problem is most of these candidates have a law degree with very little experience in decision making much less any knowledge of how the military works. Most have never been to a military base or even a military school. The closest might be a Army/Navy football game.

Your best bet, hire a vet! Please.

 

[greg334]

By adding anything outside of the present requirements is gutting the constitution. It is putting more emphasis on what the person has done (affiliation not experience is what I'm talking about) than what he is capable of doing for the people he represents and in doing so it limits the people's right to vote for those who they choose to represent them.

To a lot of people, military people are part of an establishment that is bad. To others just because you join, does not mean you have what it takes to represent people. It isn't something that people even consider part of any requirement and really shouldn't be. The military doesn't always shape people into a person that is trustworthy or even consistent person and by adding any requirement that someone has to have a college degree or be part of an organization defeats the purpose of open elections which leads directly to a form of dictatorship. This has happened in France and Germany, where the ruling class were specific in the requirements to run for some offices.

The other thing that comes to mind is this idea that people who were part of something cares for something. We have several senators and congressmen who were military members and it seems that the improvements that are needed for our present and past service members are not important to them, which goes back to my point that the military doesn't always shape people into a person that is trustworthy or even consistent person. If you consider that this is a requirement, then consider the present situation and how reality truly is. BY the way, the president shapes policy but the congress are the people who actually control the situation. They fund the military, the create the laws and they can see they get enforced. If there is an issue with say foreclosures (which I have written Levin's office about) then it is the job of the armed forces oversight committees to see that those laws are enforced.

By the way there isn't and shouldn't be a college requirement for anyone to run for any office unless it is say water commissioner or a professional type of position. The Federal requirements are clear, age and residency only - source FEC.

 

[layoutshooter]

How is adding something to the Constitution gutting it? I thought it was set up to be changed by amending it. Not that I want too, just wondering.

 

[greg334]

Layout,
Read this carefully;

The reason I say that is our system is based on fairness in equality and accountability. We can't vote for the president which many want to change and that will screw us up even more but we can vote for those who are more important than the president - our representatives.

BY adding requirements in order to narrow the field of people seeking office - any office - we are removing an important factor in both fairness and accountability. The country now can be run by a closed group of people who have no worries about being reelected or having someone in their place who is like them.

But the basis of my comment is explained here ...

If I don't agree with the idea that someone who was in the military is trustworthy, I don't have no choice on how I use my vote, it creates a situation where we are now telling people who to vote for based on affiliation.

To take it a step further ...

Right now if the person is not on the ballot, I have the option to write their name in. With an amendment that requires college degrees (which are not what they are cracked up to be) or a military background, my freedom to vote by write in ballot is now gone. That write in ballot validity now is no good based on a standard that doesn't represent me or my vote.

THIS is what I mean about gutting the constitution.

I understand what both of you are getting at with the need to take care of those who served but as I said, you don't need to have people part of it to care about it.

 

[layoutshooter]

Well Greg, our system may seem fair on paper but that is about as far as it goes.

There is NO chance what so ever of an ordinary person, a firefighter, a steel worker etc to get elected.

There is NO free press to vet candidates. Obama would have NEVER been elected if there had been. The press will ONLY back the elite. Elite to the press is, for the most part, left wing, with a degree/degrees from an Ivy League school with extreme left wing leanings. ANY candidate that does NOT fit that mold has a HUGH hill to climb.

I understand about NOT amending the Constitution as you say. There HAS to be a way to stop electing the idiots that we have been for such a long, long time.