• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US military cutbacks

Gonzo Rodeo said:
I was in the Air Scouts as an intel puke. Thank you for doing the real work.

I'm going to break ranks for a minute and admit a dirty secret - not everyone keeps (or sometimes even had in the first place) their military bearing. Employers know this. Vets aren't necessarily a sure thing. I know you know a couple "dirt bags" from your time in. Every unit had them. Those guys usually get after after one enlistment, and end up back in the real world. They are still vets, in every sense of the word, and must be counted when talking about vets in general.

Also, the PTSD thing is real concern for many employers. Not that a vet will necessarily go to work with a weapon or kill themselves or anything like that, but it can make someone "less than motivated." They need help, and employment is part of them regaining some sense of purpose.

I took a job in a warehouse for a satellite dish installation sub-contractor who pretty much exclusively hired vets. The thing is, though, they didn't hire many of them full time. Some sneaky work around for maximizing tax breaks. We had more than our share of dirt bags... and I was one of them :) When I got out, I was clearing $60k a year after taxes, as a single E-5, with my flight and specialty and reenlistment bonus figured in. A $10/hr warehouse gig just didn't hold my attention, and I devolved into the worst type of human being I have ever been in my life. This is also a problem worth mentioning, that people in the service are paid like professionals and sometimes even treated like professionals. Now, I don't consider myself "above" certain types of work (although I would rather not work in food service ever again in my life), but vets do take a step down the ladder when they get out... unless they go back to work for the government as some type of contractor. Private industry really doesn't have an answer for that. I'm just lucky I found a gig with the county. I'm putting school on hold for the moment (I did my my Associate's degree right before I got out), and I'm going to do full-time work/new career with school on the side from now on.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

My husband has 3 years left - he earns a significant amount and once he's out (if they don't find a reason to let him go before his time is really up) he won't be able to find a job that comes close to his pay and utilizes his skills he's learned in his field.

We're hoping - against hope - that he can hang on long enough for me to finish my college so we can shift duties carefully.
 
I understand people's concerns where cut backs in military spending are concerned, but we're been through these kind of adjustments before, i.e., right after WWII and Vietnam. Someone asked if a poster was reciting his commentary from a book. One such source would be "Your Government Failed You," by Richard A. Clarke. He explains in great detail many changes the Defense Dept. made immediately after Vietnam and again after 9/11. We're talking fundamental changes, such as some major universities ending their ROTC programs, how the Army began to recruite far more high school graduates rather than accept recruits with drug or other legal problems (Anyone remember how local judges gave convicts charged with misdemeaner offenses a choice between jail time or military services? That stopped for a time and didn't begin to pick back up again in earnest until after 9/11.), changes in the way our military trained, i.e., each branch once training separately but Vietnam forced the difference branches to start working together more, logicstics - how our military equipment moves or is staged around the world in theater, etc., etc. Even the National Guard which once limited its duties to domestic issues, i.e., crowd control or handling national disasters, became the reserve force to our active duty forces. I can't tell you how many of my former co-workers who were National Guardsmen/women got called to served in Iraq.

Our military has gone through significant changes before either due to world changes or changes in attitude from the American people or for political reasons, but we've withstood such changes at every turn due most from clear, well thoughout out restructuring concepts orginating either from DoD itself, supported by the Joint Chiefs or as initiated by such great military minds such as retired Gen. Patreaus. We've succeeded in recent military campaigns such as Granada, Bosnia and the Gulf War, and in a post-9/11 world we've faired well in the War in Iraq, the War on Terror (in Afghanistan) and saw success using a smaller military footprint even in Lybia combining our Special Operations forces with our Naval forces to attain our military (and some would say a political) objective. And let's not forget how technology through innovative ideas from DARPA has also helped make our military leaner but still pack a devastating punch! Smart-bombs anyone?

So, I wouldn't worry too much about the spending cuts in defense as this article from theHill.com attempts to elude to. We've adapted well before and I confident we'll adapt again and remain one of, if not, the most formidable military power on the planet!
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
I understand people's concerns where cut backs in military spending are concerned, but we're been through these kind of adjustments before, i.e., right after WWII and Vietnam. Someone asked if a poster was reciting his commentary from a book. One such source would be "Your Government Failed You," by Richard A. Clarke. He explains in great detail many changes the Defense Dept. made immediately after Vietnam and again after 9/11. We're talking fundamental changes, such as some major universities ending their ROTC programs, how the Army began to recruite far more high school graduates rather than accept recruits with drug or other legal problems (Anyone remember how local judges gave convicts charged with misdemeaner offenses a choice between jail time or military services? That stopped for a time and didn't begin to pick back up again in earnest until after 9/11.), changes in the way our military trained, i.e., each branch once training separately but Vietnam forced the difference branches to start working together more, logicstics - how our military equipment moves or is staged around the world in theater, etc., etc. Even the National Guard which once limited its duties to domestic issues, i.e., crowd control or handling national disasters, became the reserve force to our active duty forces. I can't tell you how many of my former co-workers who were National Guardsmen/women got called to served in Iraq.

Our military has gone through significant changes before either due to world changes or changes in attitude from the American people or for political reasons, but we've withstood such changes at every turn due most from clear, well thoughout out restructuring concepts orginating either from DoD itself, supported by the Joint Chiefs or as initiated by such great military minds such as retired Gen. Patreaus. We've succeeded in recent military campaigns such as Granada, Bosnia and the Gulf War, and in a post-9/11 world we've faired well in the War in Iraq, the War on Terror (in Afghanistan) and saw success using a smaller military footprint even in Lybia combining our Special Operations forces with our Naval forces to attain our military (and some would say a political) objective. And let's not forget how technology through innovative ideas from DARPA has also helped make our military leaner but still pack a devastating punch! Smart-bombs anyone?

So, I wouldn't worry too much about the spending cuts in defense as this article from theHill.com attempts to elude to. We've adapted well before and I confident we'll adapt again and remain one of, if not, the most formidable military power on the planet!
Click to expand...

Spending cuts between the world wars, created a scenario where our soldiers had to train with wooden rifles. So, spending cuts have damaged our readiness at times, too.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Some employers will value the experience in the civilian sector, some will value the military experience. Just depends on the employer. It's up to them to find the ones that value the second one more. I'm not saying we should be disadvantaged. I am saying we should he on a level playing field. With that tax cut, the gov't is playing favorites. I also come from the school of thought that politicians, whether they have an (R) or (D) by their name, do whatever they can to make more and more people depend on the gov't so they can control them. Like I said in my earlier post, they already have minorities, gays, illegal immigrants, environmentalists, the jobless, pro-choicers, etc depending upon them because they make programs that give handouts or preferential treatment to all of them. If they can vets to suck on the nipple of big gov't as well, that is a very loud group that few people will stand against. Look what happened when they threatened to alter our retirement. Everybody was yelling about that. Imagine what would happen if someone tried to take that tax cut back. The more special programs given out, the more the party that started it has to throw in the face of the party trying to abolish it. I personally think that our retirement should begin at 55 instead of when you get out after 20 or 30. Why 55? Because I think we rate 7 years earlier than a civilian. Don't see many guys getting shot at in the civilian sector while paying on their 401k lol. I would make that concession without a complaint, as long as other people were doing it too. The Senate and House retirements programs come to mind.
Click to expand...

That is a very good point, and one I can respect. I too am tired of the constant suckle-from-the-teat temptation wagged in front of everybody nowadays. But it needs to be acknowledged that most vets are disadvantaged when it comes to reentering the civilian workforce. It has nothing to do with creed, color, national origin, religion, etc., but these people have given anywhere from two to twenty (or more) years of their life to serve the national good while simultaneously sitting out the career game back home. If you happen to not make twenty and retire, your livelyhood is directly disadvantaged compared with someone who has been doing the a given job longer than you. I could be an absolutely perfect, ideal employee in every conceivable way, but there's not necessarily limited to the military. Someone else who may be just as good as me, or even not as good, will have years ahead of me in line at whatever my next gig is. There is simply no getting around that. A twenty-four year old kid with a college degree and zero industry experience isn't much competition with a thirty-two year old vet with the same degree and industry experience, but that same kid with eight years under his belt will blow the vet out of the water every time. Employers want specific experience, and the vet's can't compete.

And also, think about this - those Occupy protesters were largely made up of college kids who are pissed off about school and the lack of available employment for college graduates and the like.... would you rather see them replaced by a sea of combat veterans? Something to ponder.
 
apdst said:
OMG! That was a looooong time ago! :rofl
Click to expand...

It was only in AIT, as we had TOW missiles in the regular units by then.

Try this on. I served for 3 1/2 years with Stanley McChrystal's oldest brother, Herbert III. Young skinny Lieutenant Stanley was stationed down the road fresh out of West Point. Met him a couple times in Herbert's office when he would come to visit. Herbert "Scott" made full bird. Little Stan did a smidgeon better. :)
 
apdst said:
Spending cuts between the world wars, created a scenario where our soldiers had to train with wooden rifles. So, spending cuts have damaged our readiness at times, too.
Click to expand...

Granted, but come on now. It's 2012. Do you really think we'd gut our military that much in today's volitile international climate? Training and readiness will not be ignored nor sacraficed during these spending cuts. DoD will adjust; they always do.
 
Objective Voice said:
Granted, but come on now. It's 2012. Do you really think we'd gut our military that much in today's volitile international climate? Training and readiness will not be ignored nor sacraficed during these spending cuts. DoD will adjust; they always do.
Click to expand...

Then, WW2 came along and nearly a haf million Americans were killed. Some of those casualties were caused by a lack of experience.

It's not the quality of the training that I'm talking about, it's the quanity. Would you rather send soldiers into battle after they've had a few months of training, or a few years of training?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Yes, I have read it. I am a Vet and we take offense to it. Its like reverse Affirmative Action. I don't want preferential treatment. I want to be treated like everyone else. If I'm not competitive, don't hire me.
Click to expand...

You must have been devastated then when they passed the Veteran's benefits part of the Jobs Act?

"WASHINGTON — Heralding a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, President Barack Obama signed into law Monday legislation aimed at helping unemployed veterans find work while putting more cash in the hands of companies with government contracts."

Obama Jobs Bill: President Signs Bill To Help Unemployed Veterans
 
Catawba said:
You must have been devastated then when they passed the Veteran's benefits part of the Jobs Act?

"WASHINGTON — Heralding a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, President Barack Obama signed into law Monday legislation aimed at helping unemployed veterans find work while putting more cash in the hands of companies with government contracts."

Obama Jobs Bill: President Signs Bill To Help Unemployed Veterans
Click to expand...

It must piss you off, to find out that MTP represents a large majority of vets, who are perfectly able to make it in the world on their own and don't need a government crutch to get by.
 
Catawba said:
You must have been devastated then when they passed the Veteran's benefits part of the Jobs Act?

"WASHINGTON — Heralding a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, President Barack Obama signed into law Monday legislation aimed at helping unemployed veterans find work while putting more cash in the hands of companies with government contracts."

Obama Jobs Bill: President Signs Bill To Help Unemployed Veterans
Click to expand...
I don't even understand the point trying to be made here? Is there one? Catawba, you do a good job debating by posting cartoons in the Political Cartoon Thread, and that's about it.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I don't even understand the point trying to be made here? Is there one? Catawba, you do a good job debating by posting cartoons in the Political Cartoon Thread, and that's about it.
Click to expand...

Probably that you hate vets, or you're a racist, or homophobe, or...something.
 
apdst said:
It must piss you off, to find out that MTP represents a large majority of vets, who are perfectly able to make it in the world on their own and don't need a government crutch to get by.
Click to expand...

I am a vet who appreciates the crutch. I was an airborne linguist, and there isn't a lot of calling for that on the outside. My aircrew experience probably qualifies me as a flight attendant, and if my language skills were better (like, simultaneous translation capable, which I am not, you have no idea how hard that is) the DOJ is always looking for court translators. After a year and a half of searching, I finally found a job with 911/Dispatch. It turns out there is a little overlap in the skill sets, but not much. Either way, the hiring process started last August, and out of the 100+ people invited to the first round of testing, I was told that only four of us were hired. I think perhaps two of them failed their drug screens because I only saw my name and one other on the training schedule.

This job represents a pay cut of over 50% of what I was making in the service. I might be back up to where I was in seven or eight years. Believe me, I am appreciative of every little incentive tossed to my employers to hire me.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I am a vet who appreciates the crutch. I was an airborne linguist, and there isn't a lot of calling for that on the outside. My aircrew experience probably qualifies me as a flight attendant, and if my language skills were better (like, simultaneous translation capable, which I am not, you have no idea how hard that is) the DOJ is always looking for court translators. After a year and a half of searching, I finally found a job with 911/Dispatch. It turns out there is a little overlap in the skill sets, but not much. Either way, the hiring process started last August, and out of the 100+ people invited to the first round of testing, I was told that only four of us were hired. I think perhaps two of them failed their drug screens because I only saw my name and one other on the training schedule.

This job represents a pay cut of over 50% of what I was making in the service. I might be back up to where I was in seven or eight years. Believe me, I am appreciative of every little incentive tossed to my employers to hire me.
Click to expand...

I was in the infantry and that crosses over to the civilian world less than most other MOS's. Wanna know what I did? I got up off mass and got a job. I had to fake it for a while, but eventually, I got the hang of it and went from crawling, to walking, to running.

If yo want, I canhook you up with a job out in Texas, in the oilfield, starting at 50 g's a year. A friend of mine just bought 10 winch trucks to move frac tanks with. I know he's going to hurting for drivers. If you want to PM your contact info to me, I can pass it along to him.
 
I appreciate the offer, but I just found a job. I do miss Texas, though...
 
MarineTpartier said:
I don't even understand the point trying to be made here? Is there one? Catawba, you do a good job debating by posting cartoons in the Political Cartoon Thread, and that's about it.
Click to expand...

The point it helps address the much higher unemployment rate for Veterans while at the same time helping business. That is why it passed with bipartisan support and the approval of the majority of Americans. I have yet to see any proof of your claim the measure was opposed by a majority of Vets. This seems extremely unlikely!

So I will await your proof.
 
Catawba said:
The point it helps address the much higher unemployment rate for Veterans while at the same time helping business. That is why it passed with bipartisan support and the approval of the majority of Americans. I have yet to see any proof of your claim the measure was opposed by a majority of Vets. This seems extremely unlikely!

So I will await your proof.
Click to expand...
Are you in the military? I think not. I am, I hear it everyday, there's your proof. I'm done debating with you. A poll will never come out, just like with any other entitlement or benefit for groups that receive them, because D.C. doesn't want to see that their handouts aren't wanted. Go post another funny cartoon or something.
 
Catawba said:
The point it helps address the much higher unemployment rate for Veterans while at the same time helping business. That is why it passed with bipartisan support and the approval of the majority of Americans. I have yet to see any proof of your claim the measure was opposed by a majority of Vets. This seems extremely unlikely!

So I will await your proof.
Click to expand...

Every guy or gal getting out of the Marines had to go to what's called SEPS and TAPS training - basically two weeks of "how to fill out resume's" "what your VA benefits are", etc. One of the lessons they pound home to everyone is "you rate 6 months of unemployment benefits even if you intend to go to school on the GI Bill, so make sure you apply". And so, most do. "Veterans Unemployment" numbers are thus wildly inflated by that initial application.
 
Thunder said:
no...why?????
Click to expand...
Sounds like a talking point. Slim down, to what point? Maybe two aircraft carriers and a 100K man military? On what do you base your assertion?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Yes, I have read it. I am a Vet and we take offense to it. Its like reverse Affirmative Action. I don't want preferential treatment. I want to be treated like everyone else. If I'm not competitive, don't hire me. This is how the libs operate. They think, "If we give them entitlements, they will support us just like the blacks, unions, environmentalists, gays, etc." It would really bug me if I applied for a job and found out I was hired for a tax break over a guy who has put in hard work and gone to college to get the same job. Honestly, I would quit if I found that out. Unlike all these Occupiers with their iPhones, I'm not above working at McDonald's. I'll work anywhere before I accept unemployment.
Click to expand...

I always hired vets who came, young or old...though mostly young. Why? Because I know they will work harder, try harder, and in general, be more agreable, than anyone else. Sometimes I hire someone who has a chip on their shoulder...but for the most part, it's never let me down. The army and the marines, hell, even the navy and airforce, develop damn good work ethic in people. It's why former soldiers tend to find at least a certain level of success in their lives, I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom