Yahoo trash article: If you didn't send your kids to war, you need to send $$

[qh4dotcom]

So why do people pay taxes then if they owe a debt to the military for not having served?

http://news.yahoo.com/didnt-send-kid-war-maybe-send-132015141.html



"If you have military-age children who have not served in this decade's wars, then you owe a debt — meaning money — to those who did. That's the premise of a new fundraising effort by three wealthy American families who want to help U.S. veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Every non-military family should give something, they said. The affluent should give large sums. No one should think of it as charity, but rather a moral obligation, an alternative way to serve, perhaps the price of being spared the anxiety that comes with having a loved one in a war zone."

[libertyfanatic]

Parents don't send their kids to war, these "kids" choose that path for themselves.

[Kotin]

wow.

I could write a long diatribe involving how much I hate almost everyone on earth.. but fuck it.

[MelissaWV]

That's a perfectly valid opinion to have. My gripe is when that person has the force of law backing them up.

I do think I "owe" money to those who come back injured (I would also pleasantly and voluntarily contribute to funds for those tragically injured on the job at home). I would love to support competitive, frugal, efficient hospitals that would provide care for free or reduced cost.

None of that is accomplished through taxing me, confiscating my money, and demanding I give more and more.

[TheTexan]

I do think I "owe" money to those who come back injured

If they were performing a service I may agree with you, but blowing shit up and pissing people off is not a service.

They can perform their acts of murder on their own dime, tyvm

[MelissaWV]

If they were performing a service I may agree with you, but blowing shit up and pissing people off is not a service.

They can perform their acts of murder on their own dime, tyvm

And I wouldn't dream of forcing someone else to contribute to charity, or war, or schools, or anything else.

[coastie]

That's a perfectly valid opinion to have. My gripe is when that person has the force of law backing them up.

I do think I "owe" money to those who come back injured (I would also pleasantly and voluntarily contribute to funds for those tragically injured on the job at home). I would love to support competitive, frugal, efficient hospitals that would provide care for free or reduced cost.

None of that is accomplished through taxing me, confiscating my money, and demanding I give more and more.

But why? They put themselves there.

I'm not questioning your charitable contributions, because as you list them, that is quite admirable of you.

I just don't understand why you would feel you "owe" injured soldiers anything.

[Anti Federalist]

1864 all over again:


Paying a stand-in to take one's place if drafted. In most countries this is no longer legally sanctioned, but it was a lawful and very common practice in the U.S. Civil War. Grover Cleveland, who later became the Twenty-Second and Twenty-Fourth President of the United States, paid a substitute during the U.S. Civil War, an act for which he was criticized when he ran for President.

[matt0611]

I never forced these kids to join the military or go to war, I never even asked them to do it. Actually I'm against going to anymore wars. period My tax dollars already go to pay their salaries and benefits.

I'm not giving any more money. So **** off.

[musicmax]

Start with the Romneys.

[jkr]

more self entitled crybabies?

noWAY

[mrsat_98]

If they were performing a service I may agree with you, but blowing shit up and pissing people off is not a service.

They can perform their acts of murder on their own dime, tyvm

PLUS REP. THUMBS UP TO jkr

[MelissaWV]

But why? They put themselves there.

I'm not questioning your charitable contributions, because as you list them, that is quite admirable of you.

I just don't understand why you would feel you "owe" injured soldiers anything.

That's why I included the point about also, in an ideal society where I was actually free to choose, contributing to valid and tragic injuries of other sorts. It is rather hard for me to point the finger at someone whose been maimed by an IED because they fell for the college scam or the patriotic ra-ra-rah and tell them they should pony up the cash to furnish themselves with a new leg. I can think of circumstances where I'd let that pass with a "fuck 'em" but most times it's just some late-teens early-20s guy whose life is now a shambles. The same could be said for a construction worker who gets a leg chopped off in an accident he had no part in causing.

I "owe" because I have a personal obligation to help people out. I don't owe because the Government or some Yahoo contributor sees it that way. What's silly is that I'd have more money to contribute to causes I find worthy... if only I were not funding public schooling in California with my taxes in Florida (and I don't even have kids?).

[BuddyRey]

The comment I'd make if they'd let me post anonymously:


I only give my charitable dollars to organizations that help preserve people's lives...not extinguish them. And I'm sorry running the military has become so costly, but nobody ever asked US (the voters) how we felt about the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the Afghan War, the incursions in Libya, among countless other examples. If we're now being asked (nay, demanded) to fund the military, we should at least have shareholder discretion about what this organization is allowed to *do* with our money. Ron Paul is right...we *don't* need the military to act like world police, or act in any role other than purely defensive operations to keep our own territory safe,

In the meantime, I refuse to feel guilty or to make others feel guilty for not giving their moral sanction, or one red cent more than they're forced to, to feed the power-drunk parasites who perpetuate this reckless foreign policy.

[Agorism]

Ya, those war protestors need to pay a lot of money to help the war effort I bet.

[Agorism]

How about the pro-war people pay the anti-war people a lot of money in order to make up for all the money wasted in Iraq?

[cajuncocoa]

Start with the Romneys.No. Start with the Bushes.

[coastie]

That's why I included the point about also, in an ideal society where I was actually free to choose, contributing to valid and tragic injuries of other sorts. It is rather hard for me to point the finger at someone whose been maimed by an IED because they fell for the college scam or the patriotic ra-ra-rah and tell them they should pony up the cash to furnish themselves with a new leg. I can think of circumstances where I'd let that pass with a "fuck 'em" but most times it's just some late-teens early-20s guy whose life is now a shambles. The same could be said for a construction worker who gets a leg chopped off in an accident he had no part in causing.

I "owe" because I have a personal obligation to help people out. I don't owe because the Government or some Yahoo contributor sees it that way. What's silly is that I'd have more money to contribute to causes I find worthy... if only I were not funding public schooling in California with my taxes in Florida (and I don't even have kids?).

I gotchya....

[anaconda]

Some interesting thoughts:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Auax5rpJPI

[Kluge]

I'd rather find a way to pay them not to serve in the military.

[Yieu]

I am under no moral obligation to sacrifice myself to better enable others to be harmed. I do not support killing others through these wars. I am being robbed to fund the wars against my will currently, and this group feels we owe our livelihood to help assist in the deaths of others? No. I want no part in this harming of others -- I do not want blood on my hands either literally or financially, as in regards to karma it is the same. Any assistance is just encouragement for more killing. I want to end the wars, not help them to continue through funding.


I'd rather find a way to pay them not to serve in the military.

This sounds like a peaceful solution to war, although it would be financially burdensome.

[emazur]

When soldiers decline salaries and benefits, when America fights only just wars, and when taxation is done away with, let's talk. Otherwise STFU

[LibertyEagle]

When is it time to start sending them a bill for the harm to our national defense and all the other expenses of these unconstitutional wars that have 0 to do with our national defense?

[kuckfeynes]

I have a better idea. Any debts racked up during any given presidency are solely the responsibility of those who voted for said president.



(J/k of course... that would necessitate collectivism. But just think...........)

[LibertyEagle]

I
This sounds like a peaceful solution to war, although it would be financially burdensome.

You don't think fighting these unconstitutional wars is financially burdensome? Not to mention all the other things that follow because of all the additional enemies that have been created because our government blew up their family and neighbors.

[Yieu]

When is it time to start sending them a bill for the harm to our national defense and all the other expenses of these unconstitutional wars that have 0 to do with our national defense?

It would also be nice if we could bill the government for our tax money back, because they have been stealing from us to kill. But yes, they need to divert funds that are going to war and use them to repair our actual defense and take action to repair relations with other nations to prevent further conflict (only because we've killed so many, we are no longer respected and this is a risk). Of course that would be much less costly than war, and it would be the moral thing to do after causing so much death, not this staying around to "build up" a nation in our image while continuing to kill.


You don't think fighting these unconstitutional wars is financially burdensome? Not to mention all the other things that follow because of all the additional enemies that have been created because our government blew up their family and neighbors.

That's not what I meant, fighting these wars is much more financially burdensome. It would be financially burdensome only because it would cost any money at all. It would be less financially burdensome than fighting the wars, by far, so it would be a net benefit to us to follow Amy's idea.

[LibertyEagle]

It would also be nice if we could bill the government for our tax money back, because they have been stealing from us to kill. But yes, they need to divert funds that are going to war and use them to repair our actual defense and take action to repair relations with other nations to prevent further conflict (only because we've killed so many, we are no longer respected and this is a risk). Of course that would be much less costly than war, and it would be the moral thing to do after causing so much death, not this staying around to "build up" a nation in our image while continuing to kill.
.

Sorry, but nope. We should not be giving foreign aid to anyone. That also creates enemies. Just leaving them the hell alone with regard to meddling in their internal affairs, would be enough.

[LibertyEagle]

How about the pro-war people pay the anti-war people a lot of money in order to make up for all the money wasted in Iraq?

I really hate those terms. I mean, it makes it sound like we are against war in all cases, and at least for me, that is not true at all. I am not against war at all if we have been attacked, or there is an imminent threat of an attack. But, certainly not pre-emptive wars or nation-building.

[Weston White]

1. We are already paying them for what they are doing, regardless if we want to or not, it is called taxation.

2. Let’s be honest now, these are undeclared, yet congressionally funded wars, they are invalid. Those nations pose zero threat to America. So-called “terrorism” is largely a falsity.

3. The militaries personnel are already receiving supplemental forms of pay (in additional to their standard level of pay) for their services in that they are paid hazard pay and do not have to pay taxes on their earnings during said “war” time.

4. They are adults and chose to join the Army or Marines, so why should I have to pay any extra to provide some solace to their “anxieties”, if they don’t like that feeling then they can simply decline reenlistment.

5. I would bet more than anything else that anxiety that they are experiencing has more to do with the burdening guilt for knowingly taking part in the genocide of a lesser nation of largely innocent culture all for the soils of war, e.g., oil, poppies, and military domination.

6. Don’t we all experience “anxiety” in our daily lives, especially when the government involves itself in our private affairs? So should we all be expecting a payment for that in the mail anytime soon to?

[Yieu]

Sorry, but nope. We should not be giving foreign aid to anyone. That also creates enemies. Just leaving them the hell alone with regard to meddling in their internal affairs, would be enough.

No -- not foreign aid, that is not what I meant. I do not support foreign aid at all regardless of nation, not one penny. I mean we should be using our resources (not much) to engage in diplomatic relations with other nations, which is something we could try as an alternative to prevent war. This is just a natural function of the government, and should not cost very much. This is my idea of a pragmatic attempt to prevent attacks against our nation, in other words for national defense. To be quite honest, I don't think the government should take any money from us to use for any purpose. It is unfortunate that talking with other nations may cost some money, but it should be kept to an absolute minimum of operating costs.

If you think we shouldn't use resources to engage in diplomatic relations with other nations... well, I can support that too because I do not support taxation at all. My only concern is that could cause an increased risk to the national defense, but I am willing to be less safe to be more free.

[row333au]

"I think we ought to have a draft. I think if a nation goes to war, it shouldn't be solely be represented by a professional force, because it gets to be unrepresentative of the population."....

"I've enjoyed the benefits of a professional service, but I think we'd be better if we actually went to a draft these days," he said. "There would some loss of professionalism, but for the nation it would be a better course.".....

"We've never done that in the United State before; we've never fought an extended war with an all- volunteer military. So what it means is you've got a very small population that you're going to and you're going to it over and over again," he said. "Because it's less than one percent of the population... people are very supportive but they don't have the same connection to it."

"The reserve structure is designed for major war, you fight and then you stop, but what we've done instead is gone back over and over to the same people," he said. "We're going to have to re-look the whole model because I don't think we can do this again."

"The marriages I see most strained are the senior NCOs and officers who have four or five tours... you're apart so much that it's hard to have a marriage if you're not together at least a critical mass of time, and that's tough,"

July 07, 2012 "Foreign Policy" - Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former top commander of international forces in Afghanistan, said this week that the United States should bring back the draft, he also added Reservists following multiple deployments have trouble maintaining careers and families and have a "frighteningly high" rate of suicide, he said. Blaming the general public and population for not fully participating on all the current wars US is involve...

My opinion: draft is definitely the way to go for depopulation of United States citizens while increase by open migration from south of the borders, and workers from China (and loyal to China) and India (to whom liberty principles are alien as) to offset the population productivity (cheaper too).....

Nothing like reduce the public into drafting them into a life of force thuggery, while pushing reluctant participators (talk about mind F'ers that feels like blowing your top off after a day in tour) in policing and killing others, (others that the government says are the enemies (fabled at most of that and genuine enemies coming from blowbacks from collateral damage and political intel mistakes of mistaken public civilians without retributions) which includes now your fellow Americans.

By the way, this will be led from the front with the population's criminality (of go to jail hard time or go to our wars) - if any of the recently in whistleblowers videos we've seen of wars to go by, are psychotic trigger happy viloence loving troops responsible for genocide, murder, torture and other crimes which the military turns a blind eyes, wrist slapped punishment, vilified as heroes and encouraged, hence, these is more like all homey plus for gansta entourage gang bang fun.

Draft applies to boys, as before, but this time to girls too. A girl can curse, spit, kill just like a guy.

Old people too. Lots of 30-50-year-olds got away without serving because the volunteer service has been the law for so long, but it's time now to let them make up for that, especially now as we embark on more and bigger wars all over the globe and their wisdom and professional skills are needed. No, 75-yr-olds are not going to run the mile or pass the obstacle course or become paratroopers or frogmen, but they can man the torture centers, grease the axles and hunt down any resisters or dodgers.

However, military service for the wealthy should be an option, not an obligation (just like the article of this thread says so). Set up like the forced medical insurance payments, say $100,000 buys an exemption for one immediate family member. Include as much of people who have real money, who have saved or worked all their lives and who can afford the exemption, so extend the draft to age 75.

Politicians of multimillionaires families or stooges and few of their minions are also exempted since they make so much effort in setting up these expropriating resources and wealth type of wars as business is war and war is good business, propping up their crony elitist ultra rich who will then reward them with few millions that is very much throwing a bone gesture from their trillions in embezzling of tax paid public money.

[kcchiefs6465]

"If you have military-age children who have not served in this decade's wars, then you owe a debt — meaning money — to those who did.
....three wealthy American families who want to help U.S. veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I wonder if they did not have the money, which family would be the first to send their child into a warzone. :rolleyes: The wars aren't over ya' know. Why should such obvious patriots limit themselves to just one or the other? Here's a better suggestion.. fly your kids over to Afghanistan on your own dime and buy them a rifle and some ammo.

[seraphson]

What if they gave us a war and nobody came?
What if We The People exercise our inalienable rights and choose not to sign above the dotted line to oppose undeclared unconstitutional wars?
Besides. I pay taxes. How about instead of feeding the war racket (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm) we cut back spending by say, oh I don't know maybe 75% like we did after WWII (http://factcheck.org/2011/04/biggest-budget-cut-in-u-s-history/)?

[thoughtomator]

Any person who has joined the military this side of 2005 is a mercenary or a fool. There is no such thing as honorable service in armed forces that are deployed in direct contravention of the oath each and every member of that force is obliged to take.

[qh4dotcom]

Any person who has joined the military this side of 2005 is a mercenary or a fool. There is no such thing as honorable service in armed forces that are deployed in direct contravention of the oath each and every member of that force is obliged to take.

Exactly

[VanBummel]

Any person who has joined the military this side of 2005 is a mercenary or a fool. There is no such thing as honorable service in armed forces that are deployed in direct contravention of the oath each and every member of that force is obliged to take.
+rep

[VBRonPaulFan]

hahahahaha these idiots make me laugh constantly. it's always about more money. it's never about having an honest discussion about whether or not we SHOULD be sending other parent's children to war - it's always 'we just need to throw more money at the problem'.

those types of people can go screw themselves. i didn't ask them to send their kids to war, and i sure didn't ask them to 'protect' my freedoms. i'll do that on my own. if they want anything - they need to go right to the source. the asshole politicians that send their kids.