START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rave

Honoring our Returning Service Members

Posted 12 months ago|19 comments|505 views
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
Today we all honor the American Vets who gave lives in service of their country. And well we should. These brave people made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But shouldn't we also honor our other vets who have also sacrificed much? Many of our soldiers would have been killed in other wars, but in recent wars they have body armor so many more survive. But they come home with missing limbs. Almost a third come home with traumatic Brain Disorders and/or with PTSD. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/waroniraq/...

Unemployment for returning vets is about 20%, double what it is for the general population. A lot of the vets have a hard time transitioning to civilian jobs. Because of various problems many end up being homeless.

I have a hard time understanding why people don't want to hire vets. They have been trained well to do as they are told, and they know how to work hard.

I don't understand why soldiers trained to be medics in the military cant automatically get jobs as paramedics when they come home. They don't get any credit for any of their training or experience, and have to start from the bottom.

Wars are expensive. Caring for our returning vets are part of that cost. I have advocated slashing the military budget, and I think there is a lot of waste and unnecessary weapons systems we don't need, but we should not scrimp when it comes to caring for our vets.

If we are as patriotic as we let on, we should all get behind our vets. There are several bills designed to help our returning heroes. We can tell who the real patriots are by seeing who will vote to help the vets.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, and co-sponsored by 14 bipartisan Senators, introduced the "Hiring Heroes Act of 2011," a veterans' employment bill. http://friendsofwdva.blogspot.com/2011/0...

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., will introduce new legislation that calls on the Veterans Affairs Department to be more proactive in informing and providing veterans with the services they're entitled to receive. The senator is also calling for the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which offers incentives to companies that hire veterans, to become permanent.

Washington Governor Chris Gregoire on Wednesday signed a bill that would permit employers to show a preference for hiring veterans.

Here in California, Congresswoman Susan Davis (D-San Diego) introduced legislation to give veterans access to mortgage refinancing opportunities. http://california.realestaterama.com/201...

We have many other legislators working to help our vets and hopefully this is a bipartisan effort. On this Memorial Day, I salute them. By watching how our returning servicemen are treated, you can tell who the real patriots are.

EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
11 months ago: Right on Al.

Except, you list no solutions.

Legislation will only make things worse, and the Department of Veterans Affairs will never function properly again. It's ruined.

(And lowering our defenses will cause military injuries and death to expand 100 fold. No thank you.)
11 months ago: Also, how about a history lesson.

When our country was formed, the Continental Congress went to the Patriots and said "Leave your families and your farms and help us run off the Red Coats. If we win, we will give you land."

The Patriots answered the call and won. The Patriots ran the Red Coats off.

The Patriots went back to the Continental Congress and said "We won. Where is our land".

The Continental Congress said "Nope. We're not giving you any land."

The Patriots then marched on Philadelphia and with their weapons pointed at the Continental Congress, the Patriots received their land grants.

Al. Nothing has changed. It started that way. It remains that way.

Sad but TRUE.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: Who said anything about lowering defenses? We just need to be smarter in how we allocate our defenses. There are no longer major powers or weapons systems like Russia confronted us with. China is the 2nd rated country as far as military spending and they only spend a tenth what we do.

Most of the threat to America is from terrorism and that is best fought by winning hearts and minds and through police action, not battleships and aircraft carriers.

The revolutionary war was a bit more complicated than you describe, there were revolutionaries, that fought the British, but there were also Torries that fought with the British against the revolutionaries, and the revolutionaries would have lost if the French had not helped.

The Revolutionaries would be comparable to the progressives today, they are the ones trying to bring about change and help the common people. The Conservatives today would be comparable to the Torries that fought with the British. They are the ones that resisted change, and supported the corporations and the rich as the conservatives do today.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
11 months ago:
The Revolutionary War was a bit more complicated than that. Today's progressives are the ones in favor of taxing the daylights out of the people, supposedly in the name of the common good. That is exactly what the Revolutionaries of old were fighting against. Today's progressives are all about big government and bureaucracy and taking from one group to give to another. The Revolutionary War was sparked by violations of the English rule of No Taxation without Representation.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: The revolution was against the type of elitism and cronyism that was the result of friends of the crown getting all of the places of power, and all of the lucrative financial contracts. The war started in Boston as a protest against the East India Company, a corporation that had monopolistic control over the colonies.

The revolutionaries thought that the American people should have a say in their leaders instead of the patronage of the crown.

Today the Conservatives are returning us to a time of cronyism and patronage, only it is the big corporations (Similar to the East India Company) that are calling the shots. The Republicans have changed the laws to overturn campaign finance laws and allow corporations to dominate and virtually control elections, and to control the leaders with their unlimited, undisclosed bribes.

The Progressives are not for big government, they are for efficient government that works for the people instead of the corporations, and they are for less taxes for the common people and think the super rich should be paying their fair share. The revolution was about egalitarianism more than anything else and that is a progressive position that in inimical to conservatives.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
11 months ago: That's a very limited scope of the events leading up to the War of Independence. Here's a more knowledgeable fact base of the precursors to throwing off the mantle of oppression:

1754-1763 French and Indian War led to more duties and tariffs (taxes) by the British to pay for this expensive war with France. And with the defeat of the French, the colonists didn't need Britain as much for protection.

1763 Proclamation of 1763 stated that colonists were not to settle west of the Appalachian mountains. While intended to protect the colonists, they took offense at this curtailing of their freedom to settle where they wanted.

1764 Sugar Act: Increased taxes on sugar imported from the West Indies

1764 Currency Act: Rebuked and banned Americans from issuing their own currency or bills of credit.

1765 Quartering Act: Demanded that colonists were required to house and feed British troops if needed.

1765 Stamp Act: required that many documents, such as playing cards, marriage licenses, and even newspapers be taxed with a stamp affixed. This was the first direct tax, unable to be hidden in the purchase of an item. This one thing caused the first open assemblage, the Stamp Act Congress, to meet in New York to air grievances against the British.

1767 Townshend Acts: duties (again taxes) on glass, paper, tea, going straight to strengthening the power of the British government in the colonies.

1770 Boston Massacre : A direct result of Townshend Acts, more British soldiers were placed in Boston to combat the increased smuggling of taxed merchandise. British and colonialists finally clashed openly.

Now, we come to the Boston Tea Party of 1773, in which the East India Trading Co. was given sole rights to sell tea in the colonies, and the tea was taxed without the consent of the colonists. But we're not through yet.

1774 the so called Intolerable Acts following the Boston Tea Party banned town hall meetings, closed the Boston Harbor, and put all of Massachusetts government under control of Parliament.

That led to the organization known as the First Continental Congress, which basically organized a boycott of all British goods.

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
11 months ago: The British Parliament thought that raising taxes on the colonists was fair due to the fact that it was expensive to maintain armies and navy ships in protection of the colonies.
"It's only their "fair share", argued the British.

Sounds like a progressive argument to me.
11 months ago: How about dang Obama playing golf on Memorial Day.

Now that's honoring our service members.

Som..................
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: Good history lesson OOTB.

It doesn't alter my proposition that the conservatives of today would have been the Tories of that time, resisting the revolution and supporting the King. The Tories were the rich and powerful of that time. They were the ones who collected the hated taxes, and maintained and upheld the oppressive measures that the progressives of the day rose up against.

Toryism is a traditionalist and conservative political philosophy. Conservatism emerged by the end of the 18th century—which synthesised moderate Whig positions and some of the old Tory values to create a new political ideology, in opposition to the French Revolution. (another Progressive idea).

The term Tory or "Loyalist" was used in the American Revolution to include those who remained loyal to the British Crown. Since early in the 18th century, Tory had described those upholding the right of the Kings over parliament. During the revolution, particularly after the Declaration of Independence in 1776 this use was extended to cover anyone who remained loyal to the British Crown. Those Loyalists who settled in Canada, Nova Scotia, or the Bahamas after the American Revolution are known as United Empire Loyalists.

In Texas 1832-36 support for the Texas Revolution was not unanimous. The "Tories" were men who supported the Mexican government. The Tories generally were long-term property holders whose roots were outside of the lower South. They typically had little interest in politics and sought conciliation rather than war or they withheld judgment from both sides. The Tories preferred to preserve the economic, political, and social gains that they enjoyed as citizens of Mexico, and the revolution threatened to jeopardize the security of their world.
(taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory)

In all cases the Tories were the rich guys who supported the corporations, the powers that be, and the oppressors of the people because, they were the landowners and the recipients of the largesse of those in power.

These are the guys getting the big bucks from the corporations and the current oppressors of the people.

The progressives are the ones working to help the people, the conservatives the ones oppressing them.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
11 months ago: All right, class, can anyone see the error in Altruists analysis, or his comparisons?

In the first place, the Founding Fathers were rich, moneyed, land owning white guys, a fact often employed by Progressives when rattling off what they think is fundamentally wrong with our country, ESPECIALLY in the southern colonies. They weren't the poor and oppressed trying to throw off the yoke of tyranny. They were the aristocrats, businessmen and plantation owners, protecting their interests and keeping the hands of what they perceived as a greedy government out of their pie. They had the popular support of about 40% of the population, 40% were neutral and tried to keep a low profile, and 20 % were Loyalists.

Characteristics of Loyalists as defined by Leonard Woods Larabie
Larabee (1948) has identified eight characteristics of the Loyalists that made them essentially conservative:

1. Psychologically they were older, better established, and resisted innovation.
2. They thought resistance to the Crown—the legitimate government—was morally wrong.
3. They were alienated when the Patriots resorted to violence, such as burning houses and tarring and feathering.
4. They wanted to take a middle-of-the road position and were angry when forced by the Patriots to declare their opposition.
5. They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain (often with business and family links).
6. They were procrastinators who realized that independence was bound to come some day, but wanted to postpone the moment.
7. They were rightly cautious and afraid of anarchy or tyranny that might come from mob rule, which did cost many their property and security after the revolution.
8. Some say they were pessimists who lacked the confidence in the future displayed by the Patriots, while others point to the memory and dreadful experience of many Scottish immigrants who had already seen or paid the price of rebellion in dispossession and clearance from their prior homeland.


I would apply #s 2,3,5 and 7 to the progressives of today.

You can't have it both ways. Either they (the founding fathers) were noble men, fighting for the common man selflessly, or they were mini-despots, just looking out to protect their own interests from the government. And a new page of definitions was created after the war. What was called a conservative (Tory) then cannot be applied to the same values that the revolutionaries upheld. If anything, the ones fighting against our over-burdening Federal government are the new Revolutionaries, and the ones supporting its policy of tax tax tax are the Tories.
sunny2
sunny2
11 months ago: I've seen the worse of what can happen to the Vets.
How's begging from poverty in City streets. That's enough to have intolerance for this Government. They waste money on prolonging wars. Help these guys. It is bad enough they have to suffer abuse from people when this happens.
Our founding father's are honored in huge paintings in the Capitol as if they are deity rising into heaven. They were just like anyone else.
Weren't most of them Masons, too? Rich and powerful.
11 months ago: Please Albert. Your words are just "Leftist Liberal Window Dressing" ment to confuse those that don't know better.

You rail on the Military and next you salute them?

What a confused person you are.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: The founding fathers were noble men and they embarked on a new experiment in democracy that was very progressive for their time.

Yet they were rich and when they wrote the Constitution they excluded full rights to women, slaves, and those without means. Not that all rich guys are bad. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet do good works and many of our founding fathers did good works and advocated a true democracy and rights for all, even though they were rich.The leaders of that time, as now, were deeply divided, and some wanted a full democracy and others wanted a Republic led by the affluent elite. Only the Landed Gentry had full rights at first, but it was a heck of a lot better to be able to have an elected leader than to have one appointed by a monarch.

It wasn't until President Jackson that we formed a Jacksonian Democracy that gave the right to vote to the common man. It wasn't until the Civil war that most blacks got the right to vote, and not until 1862 that the 14th amendment was adopted giving all males the right to vote. It wasn't until 1920 and the 19th amendment that women got the right to vote, and we finally became a REAL Democracy.

Now the Conservatives would like to roll back the Constitution so that the landed gentry are the only ones with rights again. It is still the progressives fighting for the rights of the common man and it is still the conservatives trying to place all power in the hands of the corporations and the rich and powerful elite.

The right believe that the Constitution was perfect when written and they don't believe in any of the amendments except the 2nd and 10th.

I rail against the waste and excesses of the military with their $1000 toilet seats, and with their hiring mercenaries that get 5 times as much as the military to do the same thing. I rail against the politicians who have been bribed by the military industrial complex with a military factory in their district, who vote for military systems we don't need. We no longer have an equally powerful super power opposing us so we no longer need all the aircraft carriers, battleships, bombers etc. that are designed to fight superpowers.

There is no excuse for our spending more than the rest of the world put together on the military. No one appointed us the cops of the world and we can no longer afford that role. Let the community of nations, the UN, handle that job.

I do not like the use of the military when they are used for imperialistic aims, but I support them when the goals are humanitarian.

I do not like the illegal and immoral wars, but I support our troops, I honor their sacrifices, and I think they should be cared for when they return.
sunny2
sunny2
Content Removed by sunny2
sunny2
sunny2
11 months ago: I wrote a comment I don't see it. I'll rewrite it.
I never put anyone up on a pedestal and that includes our founding fathers. They had a duty to fulfill to the American people and not to be held in the highest esteem because they had power and money. They were not perfect people by far. Most people who are poor are the ones that do the most as Countrymen and make a difference. Most lost their lives on the battlefields to save our Country.
I don't care whether people are rich or poor but power is used for personal gain. It is quite evident at the moment. More rich have that threshhold open to them than others to complete that task and take full advantage.
sunny2
sunny2
11 months ago: Cypress...Al is speaking truthfully.
Your remark is pretty condescending with nothing to support it.
"confuse those who don't know better." You are judging people. You said something else earlier about "people lost their minds" but you don't back it up. Each person experiences the Government in personal ways that effect their lives. I hope you didn't direct that to anyone in particular because you don't know what other people experience or the life that they led which may be quite huge and more knowledgable in ways you couldn't even conceive.. Maybe perhaps they see things more clearly than you do. Maybe you are confused. You call people out but that is about it. I respect what people say because they have that right. I wouldn't lower myself to looking down my nose to people such as you are doing.
sunny2
sunny2
11 months ago: Al.... The information that you give is solid, but I've seen too much coming from a military family.
Our system never supports the underdog.
Look at this guy, Christie. He uses the State Police to go to his Son's high school base ball game and brushes it off like people are taking up his time complaining about him. Then he says I'll write a check for it. All the while he is cutting programs for the poor. He is lowering the amount that people can make to get on Medicaid. The new amount would be about 102.00 a week per a family of 3. What I see is a big Buffoon trying to become President by his actions demeaning the poor. In his dreams.
So cut Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid and see what real chaos can cause. What will happen to these people? Medicare and Social Security are not welfare programs. They are enrichment programs.
This is what is sickening to me. Christie made this statement;
"I want to make sure the public understands that I'm doing this because of the duty I feel to them to have my attention and everyone else's attention focused 100 percent on the real problems of this state," he said, "not the political theater and media theater that people enjoy at times."
He only cares about a certain group of people.
This is what we want to be President? Another Republican in his quest for immortality in the Media. I think Pastor Dinery is on the right track about the future of our Country. If the Republicans get their way, anyone who has lived long enough to have wisdom will be out of the picture. Then they will have opportunity to sway young minds to be cold and unfeeling to the older citizens.
Sounds like Nazism, only that didn't work out.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: Social Security and Medicare are neither Unemployment, welfare, or enrichment programs.

Social Security is simply a pension system that allows people to save up money for their retirement. It is not going broke. It is financially sound until 2037 and only needs a tweak like raising the cap to $250,000. Right now anyone that makes more than $107,000 doesn't pay any Social Security at all.

Medicare is simply a a health insurance program that has eliminated the middlemen and which operates on very little overhead. It is about half the cost of what the private insurers would cost if they provided for everyone as Medicare does. Medicare is expensive because they only deal with the old folks. 85% of medical costs are incurred during the last year of life.

Private insurers operate on 30% overhead and 30% profit and they would exclude 30% of the people in the country if the Affordable care Act didn't require them to care for all in 2014. If the private insurers had their way they would only care for the young and healthy and throw the rest out on the streets.
sunny2
sunny2
11 months ago: Yes, you are absolutely right. I hear it all the time it isn't going broke. Lately though I hear both parties are pitching that it will.
Why would they want to do this?
Abolishing these programs will put a huge burden on families trying to assume the high cost.
Is that what the Gov. wants? They want the families to support all of it.
The monies that are in the ss fund must be very tempting for them to get their hands on it. I never saw it this bad.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: Only the Republicans want to eliminate these popular programs, and to give all of the "Savings" to millionaires, and it will cost them during the next election.

The Democrats want to preserve the programs and want to adjust them a bit to make them fiscally sound. Obama was attacked because he eliminated $ 5 billion a year in Medicare waste, and extended the solvency of the program 12 years. Obama is the one wanting to raise the SS cap to $250,000 to further stabilize the program. The Republicans fought both because they would rather eliminate the programs altogether.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave