Gates wants to cut military pay?

[cindy25]

http://forums.vindy.com/read.php?3,514302

[Ranger29860]

This is so retarded. You are telling me out of the entire defense budget the only place they can seem to find money is out of pay and healthcare for soldiers?

[AZKing]

Well, retirees do get off pretty well with Tricare and retirement payments. Tricare is basically pennies on the dollar compared to what a normal person would pay, and the 20-year retirement benefits are pretty hefty as well. A friend of mine retired as an E-8 and gets close to $2000/month in retirement.

Besides that, the huge sign on bonuses could be reduced. They haven't had problems recruiting since the Iraq War has been dwindling down.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well, retirees do get off pretty well with Tricare and retirement payments. Tricare is basically pennies on the dollar compared to what a normal person would pay, and the 20-year retirement benefits are pretty hefty as well. A friend of mine retired as an E-8 and gets close to $2000/month in retirement.

It should be a lot more than that. An E-8 with 20 years, should be getting at least ~3000 a month in retirement.

[angelatc]

It is just wrong to cut the benefits of somebody who is already retired.

[cindy25]

Obama wants mandatory national service, and one way might be to starve the military of volunteers.

[AndrewD]

Thank you for your guys supportive statements. It's a nice refresher from the attitude i've been subjected to first-hand here.

[HOLLYWOOD]

It is just wrong to cut the benefits of somebody who is already retired.
We must all sacrifice to maintain the global Imperial Empire... do your part and mandatory donate to what Washington DC determines!

Get Ready for a Military Draft
Posted by: Babushka (http://forums.vindy.com/profile.php?3,22089) (IP Logged)
Date: May 30, 2011 10:37PM

Get Ready for a Military Draft. When military pay is cut and the military pay doesn't keep up with the private sector the Congress will be forced to re-institute the draft to fill quotas.
^^^^ Hate shortsightedness... How quickly military members forget all the Bush years of huge % pay increases on military pay/benefits... Even with the country running massive debt/deficits now, the military still received pay increases.

The private sector has been taking pay cuts in this depression or are doing the job of 2 or 3 people from just 2-3 years ago. Has the military adjusted their pay down in the recession or a cut of 30-66% IN STAFFING to reduce costs and increase efficiency?

Gates is full of shit anyway... He, Adm Mullens, and Hillary Clinton sat in front of the Senate Arms Services committee for an additional $80 Billion for new nuclear weapons program. Beware of manipulators... Gates/Hillary/etc

[fisharmor]

Thank you for your guys supportive statements. It's a nice refresher from the attitude i've been subjected to first-hand here.

Please elaborate.
Have you been mistreated here? If so, how?
How are the previous statements supportive of you?

[AndrewD]

Have you been mistreated here? If so, how?

Hmm. Well I wouldn't say directly in a personal way. But, there has been mistreatment towards the troops, yes. But I don't want to elaborate and derail this thread. If you'd like further, I can send that in a message.


How are the previous statements supportive of you?

So, given my prior experiences in which I somewhat mentioned above, and the fact that i'm currently Active Duty, a few of the posts above were nice to see. Make sense?

[amy31416]

The troops suck! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

(Why the hell does some group of people need constant admiration and "support?" I don't give a rat's ass that the masses don't support or admire chemists.)

[Travlyr]

The troops suck! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

(Why the hell does some group of people need constant admiration and "support?" I don't give a rat's ass that the masses don't support or admire chemists.)

Ha.. ha... good one. :) I support the Farmers!

Some troops still believe they are defending freedom while forcing people to live in Marxist hell holes.

[belian78]

The troops suck! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

(Why the hell does some group of people need constant admiration and "support?" I don't give a rat's ass that the masses don't support or admire chemists.)

I don't know if I would go as far as to say they suck, but all the military personnel that signed up knowing what would be done with them do not get any support or sympathy from me.

[amy31416]

Ha.. ha... good one. :) I support the Farmers!

Some troops still believe they are defending freedom while forcing people to live in Marxist hell holes.

I too support the farmers!

Seriously, the "troops" must be massively insecure about what they're doing to demand such blind, salivating "support." That's the only explanation that makes any sense to me.

[Travlyr]

I too support the farmers!

Seriously, the "troops" must be massively insecure about what they're doing to demand such blind, salivating "support." That's the only explanation that makes any sense to me.

That's a good point. As a young man I wanted to "defend my country" for freedom. I never served, but young people are easy to turn into killing machines for the cause. It must be tough on people when they wake-up and realize that they are mostly destroying stuff and killing innocent people for the masters. I do feel sorry that they have to endure that pain.

[fisharmor]

Hmm. Well I wouldn't say directly in a personal way. But, there has been mistreatment towards the troops, yes. But I don't want to elaborate and derail this thread. If you'd like further, I can send that in a message.

Not exactly derailing since "mistreatment toward the troops" is the underlying point behind getting mad at cutting pay.
I won't join the haranguing throng this time... I'll just point out that troops like Brad Manning and Jose Guerena are suffering mistreatments worse than anything this board can dish out, and I don't hear a lot of troops saying anything about them.

[remaxjon]

That's a good point. As a young man I wanted to "defend my country" for freedom. I never served, but young people are easy to turn into killing machines for the cause. It must be tough on people when they wake-up and realize that they are mostly destroying stuff and killing innocent people for the masters. I do feel sorry that they have to endure that pain.

And enter the idiots

Troops, police officers, etc are overwhelmingly great people. Are there bad troops of course but its the exception not the rule. Its shit like this that makes me sick and exactly what the previous poster was talking about.

[AndrewD]

I for one don't seek any special support or admiration at all. And this situation can be directly applied to farmers as well. They shouldn't be hit with higher taxes or have their pay slashed. A common falacy on these forums is to assume that I don't advocate the same support for policeman, farmers, fisherman, chemists, or any other career field as I do the military. All of these (including the many I didn't specifically mention) should recieve equal support and admiration. So I don't see how the bias or insecurity claims apply to me.

As for Brad and Jose, yes they are being mistreated. I agree. I didn't say that before, but now you have me on record. I support them both.

So for those of you that started the bashing and disrespect of our troops, carry on. I have fought this fight already on these forums to the point of having the entire thread shut down.

Just know that what your advocating is not the stance of Ron Paul, and will do nothing but harm in bringing in potential voters.

[Travlyr]

And enter the idiots

Troops, police officers, etc are overwhelmingly great people. Are there bad troops of course but its the exception not the rule. Its shit like this that makes me sick and exactly what the previous poster was talking about.

Now that was not necessary. Do some homework. Governments in the 20th century killed around 260 million people. What is great about that? To defend freedom? How many will they have to kill in the 21st century before you wake up?

If you look at the Marx doctrine you will find that modern America is the shining beacon of communism. We are not a free nation. The constitution is not followed.

You may be one of the privileged few feeding off the Merchantilist tit, but many, many people around the world are feeling the pain of our troop's tyranny.

[angelatc]

I don't care who did what to who. I do believe in contract law. If a person is told that he/she will receive a certain amount of money upon reaching an agreed upon goal, be it tenure, rank, educational achievement, cleanest desk...whatever, then changing the terms of that deal after the fact is wrong.

[remaxjon]

Now that was not necessary. Do some homework. Governments in the 20th century killed around 260 million people. What is great about that? To defend freedom? How many will they have to kill in the 21st century before you wake up?

If you look at the Marx doctrine you will find that modern America is the shining beacon of communism. We are not a free nation. The constitution is not followed.

You may be one of the privileged few feeding off the Merchantilist tit, but many, many people around the world are feeling the pain of our troop's tyranny.

There is no talking to people like you. I will simply say I myself am a small business owner and have never served in the military However my father served, both my brothers served, and one is currently a 20+ year chief. I don't consider any of them murderers.

Besides the fact that your view point is so far outside of the Republican mainstream it can't even be seen. It would be better for Ron Paul and all those trying to work and change the country if you were just silent. I know I know you will never be silent its your duty to speak truth and call people in the military evil murderers. Just know 99% of the people in the country think you are an ass and you don't help anyone get elected. In fact you hurt them.

[TonySutton]

I hope those of you are condemning the troops are equally condemning everyone who pays taxes, who does not vote, who does not protest the wars. The soldier is nothing without the money to fund the military, the politician to send them in harm's way and the idle citizens who do not stand against the wars.

[nate895]

This is so retarded. You are telling me out of the entire defense budget the only place they can seem to find money is out of pay and healthcare for soldiers?

+1776. Of all things to cut, I mean really. Unless you're one of those loons who thinks our soldiery, and need I remind this is our soldiery, not the Waffen SS or Red Army Political Officer Corps, this is simply ridiculous. How about cut out the billions spent on war? How about cut the billions spent on nutjob research projects? How about getting rid of the so-called "black budget"? How about designing an airplane that costs less than a billion dollars or so? The list could go on forever, but the last thing we need to cut is the already low pay of our soldiery. The low pay and foreign wars are already causing rampant divorce and dependency on government assistance for the wives of soldiers. We do not need to further destroy these families, who are some of the few pious families we still have left in this God-forsaken (I mean that almost literally at this point) country.

[Travlyr]

The truth is tough for most folks.

[Freedom 4 all]

I don't know if I would go as far as to say they suck, but all the military personnel that signed up knowing what would be done with them do not get any support or sympathy from me.

Judging by soldiers I know, very few of them join with a very good idea of what the army is about.

[nate895]

The truth is tough for most folks.

As if the truth that atheistic Communist dictatorships (for the most part at least) killed hundred of millions of people in the twentieth century has anything at all whatsoever to do with the US Army in 2011. If that's what you as "the truth," you're the deluded one, not those of us who happen to have a high opinion of the majority of our soldiers.

[Travlyr]

I hope those of you are condemning the troops are equally condemning everyone who pays taxes, who does not vote, who does not protest the wars. The soldier is nothing without the money to fund the military, the politician to send them in harm's way and the idle citizens who do not stand against the wars.

We have troops stationed around the world protecting our empire and suppressing individual freedom. The constitution says that we are to defend this nation. Our military and political leaders swear the Oath of Office and then ignore it.

[nate895]

We have troops stationed around the world protecting our empire and suppressing individual freedom. The constitution says that we are to defend this nation. Our military and political leaders swear the Oath of Office and then ignore it.

Not that I disagree with you policy-wise on our foreign adventurism, but where does the Constitution say what our foreign policy should be?

[Travlyr]

As if the truth that atheistic Communist dictatorships (for the most part at least) killed hundred of millions of people in the twentieth century has anything at all whatsoever to do with the US Army in 2011. If that's what you as "the truth," you're the deluded one, not those of us who happen to have a high opinion of the majority of our soldiers.

Paul Warburg vs. Max Warburg? I've done my homework. Read what General Smedley Butler wrote. If you believe that war for peace is good, then what is peace?

[Travlyr]

Not that I disagree with you policy-wise on our foreign adventurism, but where does the Constitution say what our foreign policy should be?

The general consensus at the time was, "Entangling Alliances with None."

[nate895]

Paul Warburg vs. Max Warburg? I've done my homework. Read what General Smedley Butler wrote. If you believe that war for peace is good, then what is peace?

Now you're building up strawmen. You're exactly the kind of useful idiot the would-be dictators in Washington, D.C. love with all their hearts. Just because you happen to believe our soldiers are generally fine, upstanding citizens whop deserve pay does not mean you support foreign adventurism.

[nate895]

The general consensus at the time was, "Entangling Alliances with None."

General consensus among private opinions does not make for Constitutional Law.

[Travlyr]

Now you're building up strawmen. You're exactly the kind of useful idiot the would-be dictators in Washington, D.C. love with all their hearts. Just because you happen to believe our soldiers are generally fine, upstanding citizens whop deserve pay does not mean you support foreign adventurism.

Have you read, War is a Racket, nate?

[nate895]

Have you read, War is a Racket, nate?

Oh, come on, that has nothing to do with my opinion of our soldiers. Deal with the issue instead of associating our soldiers with some kind of fascist ideology. Our soldier are more often than not the only thing standing between us and absolute tyranny. Even in Nazi Germany it was fine officers of the Wehrmacht who resisted Hitler, not lunatic anarchists who were too busy debating each other on the best plan for privatizing the autobahn.

[belian78]

Judging by soldiers I know, very few of them join with a very good idea of what the army is about.

After 10+ years of war, and they don't know? I just don't know what to say about that.

[erowe1]

I for one don't seek any special support or admiration at all. And this situation can be directly applied to farmers as well. They shouldn't be hit with higher taxes or have their pay slashed. A common falacy on these forums is to assume that I don't advocate the same support for policeman, farmers, fisherman, chemists, or any other career field as I do the military. All of these (including the many I didn't specifically mention) should recieve equal support and admiration. So I don't see how the bias or insecurity claims apply to me.

If by "support" you mean monetary compensation for the products they provide, then it's not possible for someone to dictate how much "support" any of those people ought to get. The only way to determine the proper level of support they all get is to let free people decide how to spend their own money based on their own priorities about what products they want and what those products are worth to them. This can only happen in a free market. It can't happen with politicians spending our money for us.

But I agree on your main point. This free and fair way of divvying up support for each service is one that ought to apply to the military, the police, and the firemen, in the same way it ought to apply to the food we buy.

That is what your main point was. Right?

[Travlyr]

Oh, come on, that has nothing to do with my opinion of our soldiers.

Well it has everything to do with mine. War Is A Racket and a very profitable venture for politicians and bankers. It is even getting more profitable as they cut the soldier's pay.

The top tier always tosses the mundanes under-the-bus when they are done with them.

[Freedom 4 all]

After 10+ years of war, and they don't know? I just don't know what to say about that.

I was referring mostly to HS/college kids with bad grades and no job prospects who get sucked in by the recruiter's propaganda.

[Pericles]

Well it has everything to do with mine. War Is A Racket and a very profitable venture for politicians and bankers. It is even getting more profitable as they cut the soldier's pay.

The top tier always tosses the mundanes under-the-bus when they are done with them.
Where should you focus your ire? At the 1.2 million who carry out the orders, or the 536 people who make the policy and give the orders?

[nate895]

Well it has everything to do with mine. War Is A Racket and a very profitable venture for politicians and bankers. It is even getting more profitable as they cut the soldier's pay.

The top tier always tosses the mundanes under-the-bus when they are done with them.

As I was just lambasting this sick political hack named Robert Gates for cutting our soldiers, that's exactly why I listed all those budget items they could cut without cutting our soldier's pay. This regime in D.C. is hell-bent on destroying everything that's right with America and replacing it with a nation of perverted fools. While they will cut our soldier's pay, most of whom are responsible young men trying to feed their families and serve their country, they will not cut the expenses on our latest war gadget that Northrup-Grumman designed. It's really perverted, and it just plain sickens me. This goes beyond reason.

[Travlyr]

Where should you focus your ire? At the 1.2 million who carry out the orders, or the 536 people who make the policy and give the orders?

We have to let our solders know that they are not working for constitutional freedom. They don't know that because they have been indoctrinated. They are currently protecting the 536 people which keeps us enslaved.

Listen to this killing machine chant...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sam4lq2WHos&feature=player_embedded

[erowe1]

I don't care who did what to who. I do believe in contract law. If a person is told that he/she will receive a certain amount of money upon reaching an agreed upon goal, be it tenure, rank, educational achievement, cleanest desk...whatever, then changing the terms of that deal after the fact is wrong.

The problem with this is, I don't see how a contract made by the government promising to give someone something that isn't theirs to give can ever be valid to begin with.

I don't have any delusions about the government actually repudiating all of its debt and obligations that it took on on the behalf of taxpayers and future generations. So I wouldn't seriously advocate a pipe dream like that. But I have trouble seeing how it would be unethical were it to happen.

Edit: The other side of this is that, if the government were to renege on its side of a contract with the troops, then the troops ought to be able to do the same. They shouldn't be forced to stay in for less compensation than they were promised.

[nate895]

The problem with this is, I don't see how a contract made by the government promising to give someone something that isn't theirs to give can ever be valid to begin with.

I don't have any delusions about the government actually repudiating all of its debt and obligations that it took on on the behalf of taxpayers and future generations. So I wouldn't seriously advocate a pipe dream like that. But I have trouble seeing how it would be unethical were it to happen.

We are talking about a necessary purpose of government. Common defense is a natural monopoly, no matter how the unfettered capitalists might want to think otherwise. We need to have at least some soldiers, and the fact of the matter is that the expenses of soldiers pay have been constitutionally enacted.

[erowe1]

We are talking about a necessary purpose of government. Common defense is a natural monopoly, no matter how the unfettered capitalists might want to think otherwise. We need to have at least some soldiers, and the fact of the matter is that the expenses of soldiers pay have been constitutionally enacted.

I don't dispute any of that, as long as you're not advocating some kind of coercive method of making people who don't want to pay for the military do so. I'm not sure how the Constitution gets into this. It should be natural law that determines whether or not something in the Constitution is right, not the other way around.

And again, I'm not harboring any delusions of ever living in a society free from tyranny. But just because that ideal is unrealistic doesn't make it any less appropriate as an ideal that should provide direction for our ethical decisions.

[Pericles]

We have to let our solders know that they are not working for constitutional freedom. They don't know that because they have been indoctrinated. They are currently protecting the 536 people which keeps us enslaved.

Listen to this killing machine chant...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sam4lq2WHos&feature=player_embedded

Oathkeepers has great difficulty reaching any percentage of that 1.2 million with just the basic message of the duty required by that oath. I assume you have a more effective plan than that of an organization that at least has some credibility with the target audience?

Yes, going after the 536 that really make the decisions is more difficult, but judging by recent votes, we may be down to less than 450, and with the right majority, the correct 300 will do.

[nate895]

I don't dispute any of that, as long as you're not advocating some kind of coercive method of making people who don't want to pay for the military do so. I'm not sure how the Constitution gets into this. It should be natural law that determines whether or not something in the Constitution is right, not the other way around.

And again, I'm not harboring any delusions of ever living in a society free from tyranny. But just because that ideal is unrealistic doesn't make it any less appropriate as an ideal that should guide our understanding of what's right and wrong and provide direction for our ethical decisions.

I do not embrace the idea that taxation is theft. People who refuse to pay for the common defense, which they benefit from just like any service on the private market, should be coerced to pay for it, just like those who refuse to pay for private services they receive should be coerced to pay for it. Yes, that means I believe in having legal penalties for people who do not pay their taxes, which they owe to the civil government for the service it provides in maintaining order and protecting our liberties from foreign invaders and domestic insurrectionists.

[erowe1]

I do not embrace the idea that taxation is theft. People who refuse to pay for the common defense, which they benefit from just like any service on the private market, should be coerced to pay for it. Yes, that means I believe in having legal penalties for people who do not pay their taxes, which they owe to the civil government for the service it provides in maintaining order and protecting our liberties from foreign invaders and domestic insurrectionists.

But what if they don't benefit from it? Should they be coerced to pay for it then? And whose right is it to decide whether or not they benefit?

And what if those domestic insurrectionists are in the right, and the politicians are in the wrong? Would it really be right for the politicians to coerce the taxpayers to pay to support the side of the wrong against the side of the right?

[angelatc]

The problem with this is, I don't see how a contract made by the government promising to give someone something that isn't theirs to give can ever be valid to begin with.
.

That's because....oh, never mind. I don't want a ban.

The constitution has always allowed the government to fund a military. If you believe that the men who wrote that believed that rights came from the creator, then apparently the founders believed God wanted the government to tax you to fund a military. Go crab at God about Utopian morals and how to achieve them without derailing every fucking conversation you participate in.

[Travlyr]

Oathkeepers has great difficulty reaching any percentage of that 1.2 million with just the basic message of the duty required by that oath. I assume you have a more effective plan than that of an organization that at least has some credibility with the target audience?

Yes, going after the 536 that really make the decisions is more difficult, but judging by recent votes, we may be down to less than 450, and with the right majority, the correct 300 will do.

Economic devastation will not be solved politically... only perpetuated. You can elect 536 liberty loving guys and gals, but if you keep the central banking philosophy, you'll keep perpetual wars, the police state, and rampant poverty around the world for mundanes.

[nate895]

But what if they don't benefit from it? Should they be coerced to pay for it then? And who's right is it to decide whether or not they benefit?

And what if those domestic insurrectionists are in the right, and the politicians are in the wrong? Would it really be right for the politicians to coerce the taxpayers to pay to support the side of the wrong against the side of the right?

Everyone benefits from the military. The only time when that is not the case is when the Army is turned against the people to suppress political dissent, and that has not happened yet. Furthermore, the military officer corps is nearly always the locus of resistance to dictatorial regimes. That's why Stalin had to purge the Red Army, because even the Red Army could not keep out the ye olde tyme conservatives.

[erowe1]

Everyone benefits from the military. The only time when that is not the case is when the Army is turned against the people to suppress political dissent, and that has not happened yet.

You really believe that the only way for a person not to benefit from the military is in that one scenario? Do you really think you have benefited from everything the politicians have used the military to do in your lifetime?

[qh4dotcom]

It is just wrong to cut the benefits of somebody who is already retired.

Everything on the federal budget needs to be cut. If you're going to make exceptions that's a slippery slope.

[erowe1]

Everything on the federal budget needs to be cut. If you're going to make exceptions that's a slippery slope.

Somewhere along the line it's all going to be cut, and when it does it's going to include cutting benefits for people who are already retired. The government can't keep all the promises it's made, especially the promises it's made to retired people.

[nate895]

You really believe that the only way for a person not to benefit from the military is in that one scenario? Do you really think you have benefited from everything the politicians have used the military to do in your lifetime?

Not what they use the military for, but the institution itself. While I obviously do not benefit in any tangible way from the current foreign adventurism, I still benefit from the defense our Army, Navy, and Air Force provide. The fact of the matter is, other countries are afraid of this one, and that benefits us in a lot of ways. The only thing propping up our dollar is our military prowess at this point. While this obviously is not the perfect scenario, and I would much rather have an honest currency and a military designed only for the purpose of defense (I would include anti-piracy efforts in waters that include a substantial amount of American shipping in that), alas, I still benefit from the military, albeit in a way I would rather not and think is unethical.

[nate895]

Everything on the federal budget needs to be cut. If you're going to make exceptions that's a slippery slope.

Overall military pay does need to be cut in the end, but that should be done by cutting the size of our military, not by cutting the salaries of the average enlisted man. If we cut military personnel in half, why then we cut the amount we pay in soldier's salaries without cutting any individual salary. This could be done by simply letting enlistments expire, and most military members do not qualify for retirement benefits anyway.

[erowe1]

Not what they use the military for, but the institution itself. While I obviously do not benefit in any tangible way from the current foreign adventurism, I still benefit from the defense our Army, Navy, and Air Force provide. The fact of the matter is, other countries are afraid of this one, and that benefits us in a lot of ways. The only thing propping up our dollar is our military prowess at this point. While this obviously is not the perfect scenario, and I would much rather have an honest currency and a military designed only for the purpose of defense (I would include anti-piracy efforts in waters that include a substantial amount of American shipping in that), alas, I still benefit from the military, albeit in a way I would rather not and think is unethical.

Gotcha.

So what about all of what they use the military for that you don't benefit from? Is it right for you to be coerced into paying for that too?

Also, the kind of benefit you've described isn't just something that benefits American taxpayers, but it also benefits a lot of other people around the world, such as citizens in NATO countries, South Korea, and others, in the same way. Does this mean that the tax jurisdiction of our federal government is too small, and it needs to be expanded so that they coerce all those other people to pay for the institution of the military that protects them?

[fisharmor]

Everyone benefits from the military.

Wow. There doesn't seem to be a maximum incredulity smiley available.
I do not yet own a battle rifle.
One reason is because significant portions of my income get confiscated to provide for the defense you mention.
In addition, even if I did have the disposable income to spend upwards of $2k on a rifle, it would not be on par with modern military weapons.
If I were to purchase something even close to similar, it would be 30 years old and cost five times as much.

They make it far less possible for me to defend myself, even from domestic varieties of danger such as animals and criminals.
So take your "everyone benefits from the military" somewhere else.
The only people who benefit from the military are the military and its industrial complex.

Moreover, the military as it stands, if not patently unconstitutional, is against the spirit of the constitution.
Repelling invasions and also suppression of insurrections is constitutionally the job of the militia.
Which law enforcement makes impossible, under the premise that the military negates its necessity.
Which military invariably proceeds to undertake actions that have nothing to do with repelling invasions or suppressing insurrections, and indeed makes us less safe.

I'm still not troop-bashing here. I'm just pointing out that the entire organization is unnecessary and against the spirit of the constitution.
Something that ought to be considered when making judgments on it.

[nate895]

Gotcha.

So what about all of what they use the military for that you don't benefit from? Is it right for you to be coerced into paying for that too?

Also, the kind of benefit you've described isn't just something that benefits American taxpayers, but it also benefits a lot of other people around the world, such as citizens in NATO countries, South Korea, and others, in the same way. Does this mean that the tax jurisdiction of our federal government is too small, and it needs to be expanded so that they coerce all those other people to pay for the institution of the military that protects them?

No, it is not right for me to be coerced to pay for foreign adventures to countries that pose no threat to my homeland in any tangible way. Why else would I ever even think about supporting Ron Paul! If I thought what the Feds were doing was just, I'd just go over and join the Bill Kristols of the world. As far as what other countries benefit from our protection, I would say that in the current state of affairs, we should demand some form of tribute from Europe and other countries we protect. If we are to be an Empire, we might as well act like one. However, I would rather be a Republic, so I support bringing the troops home.

The fact that Europe does not have to pay for its own defense is why socialism there has been relatively successful. The Soviet Union certainly could not maintain their socialist state since it lacked a prosperous country to partner with for defense purposes. China has only succeeded in this endeavor because it allows for a decent amount of corporatism combined with raw exploitation of citizens' (or subjects', I should say) labor. Left to stand on their own, the socialist states of the world would collapse eventually.

[Pericles]

Wow. There doesn't seem to be a maximum incredulity smiley available.
I do not yet own a battle rifle.
One reason is because significant portions of my income get confiscated to provide for the defense you mention.
In addition, even if I did have the disposable income to spend upwards of $2k on a rifle, it would not be on par with modern military weapons.
If I were to purchase something even close to similar, it would be 30 years old and cost five times as much.

They make it far less possible for me to defend myself, even from domestic varieties of danger such as animals and criminals.
So take your "everyone benefits from the military" somewhere else.
The only people who benefit from the military are the military and its industrial complex.

Moreover, the military as it stands, if not patently unconstitutional, is against the spirit of the constitution.
Repelling invasions and also suppression of insurrections is constitutionally the job of the militia.
Which law enforcement makes impossible, under the premise that the military negates its necessity.
Which military invariably proceeds to undertake actions that have nothing to do with repelling invasions or suppressing insurrections, and indeed makes us less safe.

I'm still not troop-bashing here. I'm just pointing out that the entire organization is unnecessary and against the spirit of the constitution.
Something that ought to be considered when making judgments on it.

The government price for a M16A4 / M4A1 is about $500, and I would pay that much if I could have one, or even more than one at that price.

[nate895]

Wow. There doesn't seem to be a maximum incredulity smiley available.
I do not yet own a battle rifle.
One reason is because significant portions of my income get confiscated to provide for the defense you mention.
In addition, even if I did have the disposable income to spend upwards of $2k on a rifle, it would not be on par with modern military weapons.
If I were to purchase something even close to similar, it would be 30 years old and cost five times as much.

They make it far less possible for me to defend myself, even from domestic varieties of danger such as animals and criminals.
So take your "everyone benefits from the military" somewhere else.
The only people who benefit from the military are the military and its industrial complex.

Moreover, the military as it stands, if not patently unconstitutional, is against the spirit of the constitution.
Repelling invasions and also suppression of insurrections is constitutionally the job of the militia.
Which law enforcement makes impossible, under the premise that the military negates its necessity.
Which military invariably proceeds to undertake actions that have nothing to do with repelling invasions or suppressing insurrections, and indeed makes us less safe.

I'm still not troop-bashing here. I'm just pointing out that the entire organization is unnecessary and against the spirit of the constitution.
Something that ought to be considered when making judgments on it.

Considering the Founders (yea, even Jefferson, the one closest to the modern Libertarian perspective) maintained the standing military, I find your arguments against the military to be the ones that are specious. The Founders, while opposing the kind of standing army we see today and the British had, were not opposed to common defense forces. Personally, I think we should adopt a constitutional amendment to limit the size of our military outside of an actual declaration of war.

[oyarde]

Looks to me like they do not want pay and benefits to pass a certain percentage .Sort of a typical type of managing tool.

[erowe1]

No, it is not right for me to be coerced to pay for foreign adventures to countries that pose no threat to my homeland in any tangible way.

OK. But there are specific costs involved in those foreign adventures, which include compensating the troops who are sent on them. If you agree that it's not right for the government to coerce you to pay for those things, then we're back to my previous questions:
"But what if they don't benefit from it? Should they be coerced to pay for it then? And whose right is it to decide whether or not they benefit?"



The fact that Europe does not have to pay for its own defense is why socialism there has been relatively successful. The Soviet Union certainly could not maintain their socialist state since it lacked a prosperous country to partner with for defense purposes. China has only succeeded in this endeavor because it allows for a decent amount of corporatism combined with raw exploitation of citizens' (or subjects', I should say) labor. Left to stand on their own, the socialist states of the world would collapse eventually.

That may be true. But it doesn't answer the question I asked. Should our government coerce the citizenry of all those countries to pay for the protection they get from our military the same way they coerce Americans to pay for it? The line of reasoning you've been using suggests to me that you think they should.

[Travlyr]

And enter the idiots

Troops, police officers, etc are overwhelmingly great people. Are there bad troops of course but its the exception not the rule. Its shit like this that makes me sick and exactly what the previous poster was talking about.

This quote's for you, remaxjon!

The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely.

Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. -- H.L Mencken

[nate895]

OK. But there are specific costs involved in those foreign adventures, which include compensating the troops who are sent on them. If you agree that it's not right for the government to coerce you to pay for those things, then we're back to my previous questions:
"But what if they don't benefit from it? Should they be coerced to pay for it then? And whose right is it to decide whether or not they benefit?"

For one, we are talking in two different languages here. I'm trying to deal with the world as it stands, and you are looking at a world that does not exist. Sometimes the only way to make the best of an unethical previous decision that has been made is by doing something that would normally be unethical in order to restore, somewhat at least, the previous state of affairs. For instance, with the Social Security program, eventually there will come a generation (possible our own) that will have to put money into the fund knowing they will receive absolutely nothing in return in order to peacefully correct the problem created by the sins of our ancestors. Yes, sometimes we have to pay for the sins of our ancestors. In the case of our foreign interventionism, previously this country by their duly elected representatives in their form of government, chose to go to war with countries we should not have. We will have to pay for that. That is simply the reality. The individualist point-of-view is simply wrong when it thinks it can separate the individual from the society and says that the individual cannot be forced to deal with the reality that the aggregate of his society has chosen for itself. We live in a society, and if we are going to live in society, we are going to have to admit that the actions of society as a whole affect everyone.


That may be true. But it doesn't answer the question I asked. Should our government coerce the citizenry of all those countries to pay for the protection they get from our military the same way they coerce Americans to pay for it? The line of reasoning you've been using suggests to me that you think they should.

I thought I made this clear: If we are going to be an Empire, we should act like one, and take tribute from our Protectorates. I do not think we should be an Empire, therefore, I would support removing our troops so as not to demand tribute.

[erowe1]

For one, we are talking in two different languages here. I'm trying to deal with the world as it stands, and you are looking at a world that does not exist. Sometimes the only way to make the best of an unethical previous decision that has been made is by doing something that would normally be unethical in order to restore, somewhat at least, the previous state of affairs. For instance, with the Social Security program, eventually there will come a generation (possible our own) that will have to put money into the fund knowing they will receive absolutely nothing in return in order to peacefully correct the problem created by the sins of our ancestors. Yes, sometimes we have to pay for the sins of our ancestors. In the case of our foreign interventionism, previously this country by their duly elected representatives in their form of government, chose to go to war with countries we should not have. We will have to pay for that. That is simply the reality. The individualist point-of-view is simply wrong when it thinks it can separate the individual from the society and says that the individual cannot be forced to deal with the reality that the aggregate of his society has chosen for itself. We live in a society, and if we are going to live in society, we are going to have to admit that the actions of society as a whole affect everyone.

I don't accept this line of reasoning. I also want to make ethical decisions for the world as it now exists. But that doesn't mean I can't hold to ideals that don't now exist. Those ideals can still provide direction for the things I support right now, even if I have no hope of ever getting to perfection in this life. If some previous act of tyranny caused or exacerbated some problem, then the solution is to undo that act of tyranny, not to come up with another one that's supposed to balance it out. That kind of state-based solution to a state-based problem will only create new unintended consequences that demand new state-based solutions in a never-ending cycle of growing despotism.

I don't think the difference between us is that one of us wants to deal with the world as it exists and the other wants to deal with one that doesn't exist. I think the difference is that I believe that it is theft if I take money from someone by force and give them something they don't want in exchange for that, and you (according to the line of argument you've been using so far) do not.



I thought I made this clear: If we are going to be an Empire, we should act like one, and take tribute from our Protectorates. I do not think we should be an Empire, therefore, I would support removing our troops so as not to demand tribute.

Sorry, I must have missed that.

So you support the regime in DC removing all of its troops from its empire, so as not to have to take tribute from the people of all those places. Does this apply to people in the United States too? If it doesn't, then how do you determine which people that regime should take tribute from and protect without their consent and which people it shouldn't do that to? And if it does, then aren't we back to saying that they shouldn't coerce anyone anywhere to pay for their military?

[AZKing]

It should be a lot more than that. An E-8 with 20 years, should be getting at least ~3000 a month in retirement.

Is that a "deserves" kind of number, or what he should be actually getting? I can guarantee he's getting less than 2000, mind you he's still of working age.