No bailouts for vets.

[Misery13]

MM13 just informed me that statistics show that there are more empty houses in America than there are homeless veterans. So there's all these empty properties that no one is making any money off of. Wouldn't SOME income be better than none? Why not put these vets in the homes so that they can actually get a job and get back on their feet.

[Times Roman]

I'm not a big fan of socialism.

Many of these vets have mental problems, drug problems.....

by "giving away" housing, and creating yet another entitlement, there will be others that will want a handout also.

So you give a home to a homeless vet, but ignore the single mom with three kids?

[austinite]

Here's another disgusting fact about the Big Banks. They illegally attempt to to collect on mortgage payments while soldiers are deployed. They come back and have to deal with all kinds of chaos from bad credit, foreclosure, collection agencies and so on. By law, mortgage payments are required to be halted while deployed, but the big banks break these laws all the time. The agony soldiers have to go through when they come back to recover from all this crap. Who is holding people responsible?

/rant. sorry, went off there for a bit.

[gearbox]

Some guys didnt have a chose on whether they went to war or not. Some were forced to go many many years ago. I believe we should take care of them differently then those who choose to go on their own accord. I chose to go to college, some choose military, some choose dealing drugs. We do not treat our soliders like we should past and present so I do not see why so many are still enlisting.

*I do want to thank all those who have fought for our country! I have a few family members who are active.

[Misery13]

I'm not a big fan of socialism.

Many of these vets have mental problems, drug problems.....

by "giving away" housing, and creating yet another entitlement, there will be others that will want a handout also.

So you give a home to a homeless vet, but ignore the single mom with three kids?

I said nothing about free. I agree with you on that. A lot of vets have drug problems and most if not all have mental health issues, myself included. All I'm saying is help them more. We need more support.

[gearbox]

I said nothing about free. I agree with you on that. A lot of vets have drug problems and most if not all have mental health issues, myself included. All I'm saying is help them more. We need more support.

I agree with this, but its a slippery slope.

[Misery13]

Here's another disgusting fact about the Big Banks. They illegally attempt to to collect on mortgage payments while soldiers are deployed. They come back and have to deal with all kinds of chaos from bad credit, foreclosure, collection agencies and so on. By law, mortgage payments are required to be halted while deployed, but the big banks break these laws all the time. The agony soldiers have to go through when they come back to recover from all this crap. Who is holding people responsible?

/rant. sorry, went off there for a bit.

I opened the can for people to say what they want on this subject. You made some good points. I have spent hours on the phone clearing my credit from when I was gone only to have the bank or whatever business it was to put it right back the following month. It's BS.

[Misery13]

Thank you gearbox.

[Times Roman]

I said nothing about free. I agree with you on that. A lot of vets have drug problems and most if not all have mental health issues, myself included. All I'm saying is help them more. We need more support.

I disagree.

Why would i want to help a vet and ignore the single mom with three young children?

Socialism is NOT the answer.

BTW, i'm a vet too, in case anyone is wondering.

But when it comes to creating social programs, you must be very very very very careful, because they become a money pit that sucks up huge amounts of tax payer dollars, the programs ALWAYS get bigger, not smaller, and the programs never go away.

Look at welfare. it was supposed to be a social safety net, providing temporary assistance. It has now become an ingrained part of our society, an entitlement that many consider a "right", and whole generations of people have grown up now in a welfare family. Is this really what welfare was supposed to do when it was set up? NO, it was not! In fact, welfare is so huge, and so ingrained as a part of our society, that there is no way in hell of killing the beast, and all it does is grow from one year to the next.

[Misery13]

How many jobs can you get without an address?
And, everyone IS getting a handout. Except us.
I just know that if you give someone deserving a hand UP, not a hand OUT, it can change everything

[JohnnyVegas]

I suppose the banks/mortgage companies could do that if they wanted. But the government can't because they don't own those homes. The banks would need to put together huge departments to make sure the homes were ready, manage the properties, collect rents, fix up homes after someone moves out,etc.

Not only that, but they would destroy neighborhoods by filling them with lower income renters with problems. Filling a neighborhood with renters in general is bad...I didn't mean that as a slam on veterans despite the admission above that they have more financial, dependency and mental issues than average.

[AXx]

I agree there should be more help in the process of coming home and getting back to some sort of reality. I know lots of my buddies that have came back from over seas and not had jobs and are still out of work due to the bullshit that they are placed in while deployed.

I am the most patriotic non military person IMO but we have got to fix a lot of things. Little off topic here but my lieutenant and the FD got his calf blown off when his Humvee was blown to pieces by an IED. He was sent home with a half ass surgery job and walks with a limp and the VA decides they over paid him by $100 dollars a month. He only draws $250 from the whole thing. So they stopped his money altogether for the next yr and 1/2 for them to catch up.

He spent 25 yrs in and has gotten shit on for the last 5 from big brother.

[Misery13]

All I'm saying is if the laws would be adhered to by the banks that a lot of the vets wouldn't be homeless. I do see your points TR and I agree with you. But damn brother you don't have any fellow vet friends that are struggling?

[Misery13]

Good night all. Thank you for your support.

[Times Roman]

How many jobs can you get without an address?
And, everyone IS getting a handout. Except us.
I just know that if you give someone deserving a hand UP, not a hand OUT, it can change everything

When you force me to give money out my paycheck to the government, they should be as frugile with MY money as possible, and not spend it on things when there is a private sector alternative. There are charitable foundations set up to help people out. There are churches. There are wealthy individuals that are benevelent and provide assistance. Individuals can make private donations.

I believe that certain individuals deserve a "hand up". But why is it that most here do not personally want to help (when was the last time you cut a check to the American Red Cross to help out disaster victims?) but feel it is OK to take someone elses' money (taxpayer) (that means ME)? The money becomes anonymous after they take it out of your check, and therefore, "defenseless". Almost any politician can take your money at that point, using it as THEY please, not how I wish, and then they don't even need a gun!

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in this utopian society where everybody had their wants/desires fulfulled, everyone went to bed with a full stomach, and we all had jobs? But just because reality falls short of fantasy, our knee jerk reaction shouldnt' be that government needs to fill the gaps? We have been doing this since WW2, and have mortgaged our childrens' future to the hilt, to the point were we as a government have borrowed so much trying to fill this gap between fantasy and reality that we will never pay off the debt. EVER!!

I suppose the banks/mortgage companies could do that if they wanted. But the government can't because they don't own those homes. The banks would need to put together huge departments to make sure the homes were ready, manage the properties, collect rents, fix up homes after someone moves out,etc.

Not only that, but they would destroy neighborhoods by filling them with lower income renters with problems. Filling a neighborhood with renters in general is bad...I didn't mean that as a slam on veterans despite the admission above that they have more financial, dependency and mental issues than average.

Agree with you there mate!

[Times Roman]

All I'm saying is if the laws would be adhered to by the banks that a lot of the vets wouldn't be homeless. I do see your points TR and I agree with you. But damn brother you don't have any fellow vet friends that are struggling?

yes, i do have mates that happen to be vets that are struggling. I also have friends, college alumni, that are struggling. I have neighbors that are struggling. I have relatives that are struggling. Ask the guy at the corner when you make the left leaving the Costco parking lot and he'll tell you he is struggling, which is why he is holding up the sign trying to hussle a few bucks from me.

I'm a vet. I did my time and I left the military. Should i be afforded a special status and therefore receive preferential treatment? No. This is not how I think. I went on, went to college, and made a life for myself.

Now, if the vet has received a disability while serving his country, then he/she should be taken care of to the extent of his injury. I'm all for that. If a soldier loses his life in the line of duty, then his widow and children should be taken care of. I'm all for that too. But other than that, besides my admiration and respect, I don't think a vet should be receiving preferential treatment.

There are exceptions to the way i feel. For example, the GI bill was a helluva concept. Soldiers were getting solid educations, were able to improve themselves and their situation, and able to create solid career paths for thier future. This is an excellent example of a handup. Plus, these soldiers were inducted due to an involuntary draft (against their will, in most part) as compared to today where we have an all volunteer military.

I just don't like the idea of someone putting a "gun" to my head (via payroll taxes) and not giving me much of a voice on how it is spent.

Typical Libertarian philosophy.

[Razor]

Samson could you give us some of that obama cash you get from your homeboy ? Hahaha

[cherrydrpepper]

Some guys didnt have a chose on whether they went to war or not. Some were forced to go many many years ago. I believe we should take care of them differently then those who choose to go on their own accord. I chose to go to college, some choose military, some choose dealing drugs. We do not treat our soliders like we should past and present so I do not see why so many are still enlisting.

*I do want to thank all those who have fought for our country! I have a few family members who are active.

You are right. Here is the problem. How can someone who has been coddled by a normal american family ever feel sympathy for someone who has seen a hell beyond our imagination? Thus you get a wave of apathy from people when the topic of mentally ill vets comes up.

[< <Samson> >]

Samson could you give us some of that obama cash you get from your homeboy ? Hahaha

I wish I got more, so far the only thing I get is my school paid for, a few hundred bucks and free food


Milk it till I can milk no more while furthering myself for better shit in life.

[thegodfather]

When you force me to give money out my paycheck to the government, they should be as frugile with MY money as possible, and not spend it on things when there is a private sector alternative. There are charitable foundations set up to help people out. There are churches. There are wealthy individuals that are benevelent and provide assistance. Individuals can make private donations.

I believe that certain individuals deserve a "hand up". But why is it that most here do not personally want to help (when was the last time you cut a check to the American Red Cross to help out disaster victims?) but feel it is OK to take someone elses' money (taxpayer) (that means ME)? The money becomes anonymous after they take it out of your check, and therefore, "defenseless". Almost any politician can take your money at that point, using it as THEY please, not how I wish, and then they don't even need a gun!

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in this utopian society where everybody had their wants/desires fulfulled, everyone went to bed with a full stomach, and we all had jobs? But just because reality falls short of fantasy, our knee jerk reaction shouldnt' be that government needs to fill the gaps? We have been doing this since WW2, and have mortgaged our childrens' future to the hilt, to the point were we as a government have borrowed so much trying to fill this gap between fantasy and reality that we will never pay off the debt. EVER!!



Agree with you there mate!

Precisely. It is not legal for me to come steal your money, and give it to your neighbor. Yet, somehow, it is legal for the government to come and take your money (by threat of force over the legitimate monopoly on violence) and give it to your neighbor. I can't seem to make the logical jump, where one is right, and one is wrong. The only taxes originally approved in the constitution were Excise Taxes and Apportioned Taxes. An Excise Tax, is one which you can opt out of, if you don't wish to pay a tax on gas for roads, ride a bike. If you dont wish to be taxed for cigarettes, dont purchase them. An Apportioned Tax, is one in which all citizens are taxed at X%, but the entire sum of that money collected is then distributed back to the people in equal share. The tax on income did not come into being until 1913, and that is somewhat controversial. Taxes on profits&gains are perfectly legal, you may tax a corporation for profits&gains, making a profit after the overhead has been paid. Yet, when you goto work for a company, and get paid an hourly rate, you are not profitting&gaining, you are performing an EXCHANGE, and ergo, by definition would make taxation on income exempt, since it is somewhat impossible to deliniate what part of that HOUR of work is an exchange, and which part is profit&gains.

One must understand that government is inherently inept, inefficient, and grossly rife for abuse at all times, no matter what the political system, but some more then others. Only one model for limiting the size of government has ever been sufficiently successful, known as the "Starve the Beast" model, meaning that if you limit the amount of funds the government can collect, by virtue you limit the size at which that government can expand and grow. Ergo, the creep you have seen post WWII of government into every facet and minutiae of personal life. If one adds up all the taxes that they pay, Federal, State, & Local, + Excise taxes, it is easy to see ones income taxed at 50-55%. This is surely not what our founding fathers had envisioned for a nation who went to war over taxation. Unfortunately, the decision in 1913 to allow a tax on income, has been one of the single most detrimental pieces of legislation to effect our country, that and allowing the formation of a central bank of last resort, which can print money, and can artificially set interest rates devoid of market forces (The Federal Reserve).

This requires that people fundamentally change what they think the scope of government ought to be. The United States was designed to be the 'framework' model of government, that is, a government which simply provides the lattice structure under which a society can operate, and prosper. The Federal governments principle job is to ensure a national defense, enforce contracts, and provide infrastructure for trade to be possible. Any and all other functions aside from those, are not authorized by the constitution, and should rightly be left to the states (50 labs of experiments in a representative Republic form of democracy). This means for instance, a state like New York could institute a state run healthcare system, and raise taxes to the hilt within the state in order to pay for it, but that likewise you have the ability to vote with your feet and move to a neighboring state which does not tax to such a high degree, and where healthcare is a competitive free market. States ought to compete with one another for citizens business (tax dollars in this case) in the same way that private enterprise is forced to do.

Should soldiers be taken care of in a much better and larger capacity? Absolutely, without a doubt, not enough is done for soldiers once they have left service, and legislature should not be able to change benefits for soldiers who signed up under certain expectations of services to be rendered when they seperate from the military. However, forcing private enterprise to give housing which is bank owned to soldiers, just because its "there" and is unoccupied is a slippery slope indeed, and we would not even propose such things if it were not veterans we were talking about. There are far better ways to help veterans who are experiencing problems reintegrating into society once they have seperated, but that duty belongs to the military assistance programs themselves, and where those fall short, to charitable an philanthropic organizations.

[Hunter]

It's a very slippery slope. I however believe we don't do enough to help our vets.

I had a friend take out a home loan through the v.a and it was hell. I finally gave him 10 acres of my land and helped him put up a home. After seeing him struggle when ever he was deployed I realized how poorly our soldiers are treated.

I think private citizens should step up and help out as much as they can.

[thegodfather]

It's a very slippery slope. I however believe we don't do enough to help our vets.

I had a friend take out a home loan through the v.a and it was hell. I finally gave him 10 acres of my land and helped him put up a home. After seeing him struggle when ever he was deployed I realized how poorly our soldiers are treated.

I think private citizens should step up and help out as much as they can.

It's certainly a private citizens prerogative to do so. However, food for thought MN, how much easier would it be for private citizens wishing to step up and help out vets, if the government was not taxing the private citizen in the neighborhood of 50-55% of their yearly income? I suspect many citizens, far more then you imagine would LOVE to step up and help veterans, unfortunately, the government has been the biggest barrier and impediment to charitable giving, via government largesse.

[Hunter]

It's certainly a private citizens prerogative to do so. However, food for thought MN, how much easier would it be for private citizens wishing to step up and help out vets, if the government was not taxing the private citizen in the neighborhood of 50-55% of their yearly income? I suspect many citizens, far more then you imagine would LOVE to step up and help veterans, unfortunately, the government has been the biggest barrier and impediment to charitable giving, via government largesse.

I meant if they wish to. We have nearly the same political views.

Goverment is so inept, that I believe one citizen doing it under their own accord has far more impact dollar for dollar then any goverment program could hope for.

[Hunter]

It's certainly a private citizens prerogative to do so. However, food for thought MN, how much easier would it be for private citizens wishing to step up and help out vets, if the government was not taxing the private citizen in the neighborhood of 50-55% of their yearly income? I suspect many citizens, far more then you imagine would LOVE to step up and help veterans, unfortunately, the government has been the biggest barrier and impediment to charitable giving, via government largesse.

I couldnt agree me. An example of this is our local food shelter cant accept any meat donated by local hunters beacause of a law passed in minnesota. So as you mentioned taxes are so high that a person may not be able to afford to donate a 100 pounds of meat but could afford to donate an extra deer they took during hunting season.

[Gaspari1255]

If you are homeless, you are homeless for a reason. That's the bottom line.

The issue that I have is the fact that the ghetto/thug/gangbangin' ethnic families get free section 8 housing and a plethora of food stamps all because dad is in jail and mommy would rather pump out more children instead of going to work.

If you're gonna give free housing away, give it to vets, not hoodlums

[Misery13]

Well I'm awake now and that was a good read for me this morning. Thank you everyone for your views and opinions. Especially you TimesRoman. I'm getting ready to retire and even though it's my time I'm not to thrilled about leaving. Not many of us are.

[songdog]

If you are homeless, you are homeless for a reason. That's the bottom line.

The issue that I have is the fact that the ghetto/thug/gangbangin' ethnic families get free section 8 housing and a plethora of food stamps all because dad is in jail and mommy would rather pump out more children instead of going to work.

If you're gonna give free housing away, give it to vets, not hoodlums

Sad but true!

[Times Roman]

Well I'm awake now and that was a good read for me this morning. Thank you everyone for your views and opinions. Especially you TimesRoman. I'm getting ready to retire and even though it's my time I'm not to thrilled about leaving. Not many of us are.

So you've done your 20 and thinking of retiring. I hope that during this very long period, you've developed your skill set to ready for the civilian job market?

----you've earned at least your BS degree, right? During your 20 years, the Military has made availabe to you a variety of tuition assistance programs you should have taken advantage of.

Good luck mate! It's been a pleasure debating with you.

Precisely. It is not legal for me to come steal your money, and give it to your neighbor. Yet, somehow, it is legal for the government to come and take your money (by threat of force over the legitimate monopoly on violence) and give it to your neighbor. I can't seem to make the logical jump, where one is right, and one is wrong. The only taxes originally approved in the constitution were Excise Taxes and Apportioned Taxes. An Excise Tax, is one which you can opt out of, if you don't wish to pay a tax on gas for roads, ride a bike. If you dont wish to be taxed for cigarettes, dont purchase them. An Apportioned Tax, is one in which all citizens are taxed at X%, but the entire sum of that money collected is then distributed back to the people in equal share. The tax on income did not come into being until 1913, and that is somewhat controversial. Taxes on profits&gains are perfectly legal, you may tax a corporation for profits&gains, making a profit after the overhead has been paid. Yet, when you goto work for a company, and get paid an hourly rate, you are not profitting&gaining, you are performing an EXCHANGE, and ergo, by definition would make taxation on income exempt, since it is somewhat impossible to deliniate what part of that HOUR of work is an exchange, and which part is profit&gains.

One must understand that government is inherently inept, inefficient, and grossly rife for abuse at all times, no matter what the political system, but some more then others. Only one model for limiting the size of government has ever been sufficiently successful, known as the "Starve the Beast" model, meaning that if you limit the amount of funds the government can collect, by virtue you limit the size at which that government can expand and grow. Ergo, the creep you have seen post WWII of government into every facet and minutiae of personal life. If one adds up all the taxes that they pay, Federal, State, & Local, + Excise taxes, it is easy to see ones income taxed at 50-55%. This is surely not what our founding fathers had envisioned for a nation who went to war over taxation. Unfortunately, the decision in 1913 to allow a tax on income, has been one of the single most detrimental pieces of legislation to effect our country, that and allowing the formation of a central bank of last resort, which can print money, and can artificially set interest rates devoid of market forces (The Federal Reserve).

This requires that people fundamentally change what they think the scope of government ought to be. The United States was designed to be the 'framework' model of government, that is, a government which simply provides the lattice structure under which a society can operate, and prosper. The Federal governments principle job is to ensure a national defense, enforce contracts, and provide infrastructure for trade to be possible. Any and all other functions aside from those, are not authorized by the constitution, and should rightly be left to the states (50 labs of experiments in a representative Republic form of democracy). This means for instance, a state like New York could institute a state run healthcare system, and raise taxes to the hilt within the state in order to pay for it, but that likewise you have the ability to vote with your feet and move to a neighboring state which does not tax to such a high degree, and where healthcare is a competitive free market. States ought to compete with one another for citizens business (tax dollars in this case) in the same way that private enterprise is forced to do.

Should soldiers be taken care of in a much better and larger capacity? Absolutely, without a doubt, not enough is done for soldiers once they have left service, and legislature should not be able to change benefits for soldiers who signed up under certain expectations of services to be rendered when they seperate from the military. However, forcing private enterprise to give housing which is bank owned to soldiers, just because its "there" and is unoccupied is a slippery slope indeed, and we would not even propose such things if it were not veterans we were talking about. There are far better ways to help veterans who are experiencing problems reintegrating into society once they have seperated, but that duty belongs to the military assistance programs themselves, and where those fall short, to charitable an philanthropic organizations.

Very well spoken. I believe most people do not have the slightest clue how the framers intended this government to turn out. Libertarian?

It's certainly a private citizens prerogative to do so. However, food for thought MN, how much easier would it be for private citizens wishing to step up and help out vets, if the government was not taxing the private citizen in the neighborhood of 50-55% of their yearly income? I suspect many citizens, far more then you imagine would LOVE to step up and help veterans, unfortunately, the government has been the biggest barrier and impediment to charitable giving, via government largesse.

Last year payroll taxes withheld was almost $40,000 for me. And that was AFTER I exempted myself from payroll taxes for six months!!!

[thegodfather]

So you've done your 20 and thinking of retiring. I hope that during this very long period, you've developed your skill set to ready for the civilian job market?

----you've earned at least your BS degree, right? During your 20 years, the Military has made availabe to you a variety of tuition assistance programs you should have taken advantage of.

Good luck mate! It's been a pleasure debating with you.



Very well spoken. I believe most people do not have the slightest clue how the framers intended this government to turn out. Libertarian?



Last year payroll taxes withheld was almost $40,000 for me. And that was AFTER I exempted myself from payroll taxes for six months!!!

Conservative Republican. True conservatism though, it was Ronald Reagan who said, and I'm paraphrasing, that Republicanism is essentially Libertarianism. So I don't feel the need to identify as Libertarian, when that puts you into a very small box, and honestly the conservative Republican movement was hijacked in the late 80's by the "moral majority," and later by the Neo-Conservatives and other RINO's. If it gives any indication to my leanings, I am a huge fan of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, etc. You should really check out the things that Peter Schiff writes, he's an economist, I think you would really like his stuff, he predicted the housing collapse years before it happened, just like Ron Paul. The best way to describe me is as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. What is unfortunate, is even the Tea Party movement, which I would accredit 85% of being started by Ron Paul, has been hijacked by the likes of Michelle Bachman, an ardent Xenophobe, racist, religious zealout. I believe that our country should only ever goto war with a declaration by Congress, since that is the body which most closely represents the people, and which is most susceptible to the peoples will (Bi-annual elections). Whether we agree or disagree on the CAUSES of radicalized Islamic terrorists, our foreign policy MUST change. We involve ourselves in far too many conflicts, with unclear motives and objectives. And I believe that Democrats and Republicans, and any patriotic American should agree that we also need to reign in the immense power grab by the Executive branch since 9/11, starting by repealing in full the Patriot Act, as well as NDAA 2012. Additionally, I believe that telecom companies who were complicit in facilitating warrantless wiretaps on American citizens, should have their immunity stripped, we should have a full Congressional inquiry, and those companies should be liable for damages and civil rights abuses. What saddens me, is that the constitution that our brave military men&women are fighting to protect, is being degredaded as time goes on. We cannot lose our position of moral and ethical superiority.

I beleive that if we continue to trample on the tenets our country was founded on, the 'terrorists' have already won. Since 9/11, we have...............wiretapped citizens without warrants, held detainees for almost 10 years without formal charges, tried some detainees in military tribunals instead of a formal court system, waterboarded/TORTURED detainees, severely weakened the 1st,4th, and 5th amendments to the Constitution, assassinated an American citizen living abroad via NDAA 2012. We participate in extreme rendition, SECRET PRISONS, etc, and so on. It saddens me because these are not the things our military men&women signed up to protect, they signed up to protect the constitution of the United States of America, the single most elegeant, unique, and important document in human history. In only 2600 words, we were able to shape the existence of the best country in human history. The things we have done to that document in the wake of 9/11 are unforgiveable, and we must insist that those assaults on our constitution be rectified, less we lose the intent of that document all together. What should be appearent to everyone, is that these egregious errors were not just perpetrated by one political party, or by Bush, Obama has been just as complicit in the power grab of the executive branch, and is the first President to order the assassination of an American citizen without any judicial oversight, he has assumed the role of Judge, Jury, and Executioner, and that should worry every citizen. Civil liberties is an issue which is very close to my heart, they are the basis for our entire society, for our country, and without them, all of the economic and social issues that we've lamented about in previous posts are inconsequential. Our free markets, high GDP, etc, mean little if our civil liberties are not protected, it is those civil liberties which I believe allows all the other things in our country like our economy to prosper.

[Times Roman]

I was not being fairly represented by the republican party, and decided to leave after the evangelicals came to power.... the pat Robertsons, the moral majority, and all the rest of the BS they bring with them....

I disagree with the concept of due process being applicable and afforded to a terrorist. The problem is that "terrorist" needs to be defined narrowly, and it is becoming defined broadly. Our issue is not with the terrorist themselves, as they are merely pawns. Our issue is with the powers that control the terrorists, which is, often times, other governments. And because other governments are involved, we cannot treat these terrorists the same as we do our home grown criminals.

The problem with power and government is that over time, power has a tendency to centralize, vested in fewer and few individuals.

And if they can take away our guns, then it becomes that much easier!

[thegodfather]

I was not being fairly represented by the republican party, and decided to leave after the evangelicals came to power.... the pat Robertsons, the moral majority, and all the rest of the BS they bring with them....

I disagree with the concept of due process being applicable and afforded to a terrorist. The problem is that "terrorist" needs to be defined narrowly, and it is becoming defined broadly. Our issue is not with the terrorist themselves, as they are merely pawns. Our issue is with the powers that control the terrorists, which is, often times, other governments. And because other governments are involved, we cannot treat these terrorists the same as we do our home grown criminals.

The problem with power and government is that over time, power has a tendency to centralize, vested in fewer and few individuals.

And if they can take away our guns, then it becomes that much easier!

I left the Republican party after the 2008 elections, and registered as an Independent, simply to punish the party, I have since rejoined though, although I think I may be putting an "I" next to my name again.

A 'terrorist' is really a misnomer however, terrorism is a tactic of war, its not a person. Declaring a war on terrorism is akin to declaring a war on frontal assaults, or flanking. I think we need a new term for these people, enemy combatants, war criminals, etc. One of the things I disagreed with heavily, was the initial labeling of Iraqi insurgents as 'terrorists.' That was simply not true, they were fighting us because they did not want us in their country, as we would do if a large force from a foreign country invaded our own land, set up bases in our neighborhoods, killed our family members for driving too close a convoy, etc. No one can blame our soldiers for doing their duty, and defending themselves, they must play the hand they are dealt. The responsibility lay with the politicians who decided to invade Iraq in the first place, in the face of shoddy intelligence which overstated the danger from Iraq. I do not think many people today, other then ardent Neo-Cons can defend the war in Iraq, as the stated reason for going into that country changed a dozen times over the past 8 years. It's deplorable that our politicians sacrificed so many of our military men and women for a war that did not need to be fought. This was my point about DECLARATIONS OF WAR, and the power grab by the executive branch. By law, the President must go before Congress and get a declarataion of war after the 90-day emergency war powers act expires. That exists for exigent circumstances, when a threat is IMMINENT and waiting for Congress will not do. The problem with not declaring war, is that there is no stated goal, no clear reason, and little discourse among Congress about why we're going to war. Additionally, without a declaration of war, without higher tax rates to fund the war, rationing, etc, it disconnects the majority of the citizenry from the war effort, they are insulated, if they did not turn on the news, they could go about their lives and never know that our country was at war. This is starkly different from previous conflicts, and it was supported via the Federal Reserve debasing our currency by printing more, as Ron Paul would say "Guns and Butter," meaning Americans were at war but still had butter, not having to sacrifice anything, so of course the apathy Americans showed towards our two most recent conflicts is obvious, when they have no investment in it. Under the Constitution, declaring war is only permissible if the national security of the contigious United States of America is directly threatened. This new doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN under our constitution, going to war willy nilly because a country might, some day, 20 years from now, possibly, maybe, pose a threat to you. Iraq showed absolutely no aggression towards America, they were NOT a state sponsor of terrorism (the CIA said this, its not just my opinion), al-Qaeda was not in Iraq until AFTER our invasion, and it was Bin Laden himself who said he wanted us there, because then it was easy for his fighters to flock to Iraq to kill Americans, its much easier to do in his own back yard then to do 4,000 miles away on our turf. Point in case, our foreign policy initiatives MUST change. However, I whole heartedly support the war in Afghanistan, although I think that nation building is not something the US military should be engaged in, after we defeated the enemy regime there, we should have packed up and left, instead of carrying on an 11 year campagin, at the cost of thousands of American soldiers dead, thousands upon thousands more wounded and disabled for life, and trillions of dollars of tax payer money that will likely be paid by our grand children.

[Far from massive]

Sad fact is that in a free enterprize system the rich will get rich and the poor poorer. Without morals to keep this system under some control free economy societies will fold. History supports this over and over again, we as a group no longer have compassion, minimum wage compared to the cost of living has never been lower and the fvkn end is near. And this Moron bama who is handing money to everyone as a cure is the worst possible stopgap mesure that could have ever come along.

Rant over,

PS, you are welcome to have a different opinion however don't try to bait me into reply...this is a rant, I have no interest in debate.

[Times Roman]

I left the Republican party after the 2008 elections, and registered as an Independent, simply to punish the party, I have since rejoined though, although I think I may be putting an "I" next to my name again.

A 'terrorist' is really a misnomer however, terrorism is a tactic of war, its not a person. Declaring a war on terrorism is akin to declaring a war on frontal assaults, or flanking. I think we need a new term for these people, enemy combatants, war criminals, etc. One of the things I disagreed with heavily, was the initial labeling of Iraqi insurgents as 'terrorists.' That was simply not true, they were fighting us because they did not want us in their country, as we would do if a large force from a foreign country invaded our own land, set up bases in our neighborhoods, killed our family members for driving too close a convoy, etc. No one can blame our soldiers for doing their duty, and defending themselves, they must play the hand they are dealt. The responsibility lay with the politicians who decided to invade Iraq in the first place, in the face of shoddy intelligence which overstated the danger from Iraq. I do not think many people today, other then ardent Neo-Cons can defend the war in Iraq, as the stated reason for going into that country changed a dozen times over the past 8 years. It's deplorable that our politicians sacrificed so many of our military men and women for a war that did not need to be fought. This was my point about DECLARATIONS OF WAR, and the power grab by the executive branch. By law, the President must go before Congress and get a declarataion of war after the 90-day emergency war powers act expires. That exists for exigent circumstances, when a threat is IMMINENT and waiting for Congress will not do. The problem with not declaring war, is that there is no stated goal, no clear reason, and little discourse among Congress about why we're going to war. Additionally, without a declaration of war, without higher tax rates to fund the war, rationing, etc, it disconnects the majority of the citizenry from the war effort, they are insulated, if they did not turn on the news, they could go about their lives and never know that our country was at war. This is starkly different from previous conflicts, and it was supported via the Federal Reserve debasing our currency by printing more, as Ron Paul would say "Guns and Butter," meaning Americans were at war but still had butter, not having to sacrifice anything, so of course the apathy Americans showed towards our two most recent conflicts is obvious, when they have no investment in it. Under the Constitution, declaring war is only permissible if the national security of the contigious United States of America is directly threatened. This new doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN under our constitution, going to war willy nilly because a country might, some day, 20 years from now, possibly, maybe, pose a threat to you. Iraq showed absolutely no aggression towards America, they were NOT a state sponsor of terrorism (the CIA said this, its not just my opinion), al-Qaeda was not in Iraq until AFTER our invasion, and it was Bin Laden himself who said he wanted us there, because then it was easy for his fighters to flock to Iraq to kill Americans, its much easier to do in his own back yard then to do 4,000 miles away on our turf. Point in case, our foreign policy initiatives MUST change. However, I whole heartedly support the war in Afghanistan, although I think that nation building is not something the US military should be engaged in, after we defeated the enemy regime there, we should have packed up and left, instead of carrying on an 11 year campagin, at the cost of thousands of American soldiers dead, thousands upon thousands more wounded and disabled for life, and trillions of dollars of tax payer money that will likely be paid by our grand children.

oh, what gave you the impression there was ever any intent on repaying any of this debt?

Sad fact is that in a free enterprize system the rich will get rich and the poor poorer. Without morals to keep this system under some control free economy societies will fold. History supports this over and over again, we as a group no longer have compassion, minimum wage compared to the cost of living has never been lower and the fvkn end is near. And this Moron bama who is handing money to everyone as a cure is the worst possible stopgap mesure that could have ever come along.

Rant over,

PS, you are welcome to have a different opinion however don't try to bait me into reply...this is a rant, I have no interest in debate.

A purely capitalistic system without checks and balances, other than the power to vote with your wallet, ONLY works in the long term. Since most of us live day to day in the short term, I agree that there definately needs to be regulation, else we will have perpetual cycles of prosperity and bust in our economy. The depression is a good example of a bust, lasting over ten years until ww2 began.

The best thing anyone can do right now is to go out and get the best damn possible education they can in a field where that skill set is scarce.

Mates, the days of the union are over, where an individual doesn't have to invest in their career beyond paying thier union dues and a high school education!!

Get 'r dun!!!

[gearbox]

You are right. Here is the problem. How can someone who has been coddled by a normal american family ever feel sympathy for someone who has seen a hell beyond our imagination? Thus you get a wave of apathy from people when the topic of mentally ill vets comes up.

Bush and now Obama wouldn't be as quick to say let's go to war with a third world country for over 10 years for what??
Again if they knew war they would think twice about sticking their nose in other countries business.

[gearbox]

It's a very slippery slope. I however believe we don't do enough to help our vets.

I had a friend take out a home loan through the v.a and it was hell. I finally gave him 10 acres of my land and helped him put up a home. After seeing him struggle when ever he was deployed I realized how poorly our soldiers are treated.

I think private citizens should step up and help out as much as they can.

The funny think you say private citizens, when as TR already mentioned how many of us already pay so much tax to support whatever the government is doing. Now we are suppose to help more. What about 4 years ago Obama hilary and mcain managed to raise how much money in there presidential race. I remember the figure was astonishing. Point being people in.government have money and choose to spend ours

[Hunter]

The funny think you say private citizens, when as TR already mentioned how many of us already pay so much tax to support whatever the government is doing. Now we are suppose to help more. What about 4 years ago Obama hilary and mcain managed to raise how much money in there presidential race. I remember the figure was astonishing. Point being people in.government have money and choose to spend ours

If you read the post under that, I mention that I believe it should be under free will not a goverment program. As in people helping people because they believe it is right, not increasing taxes or starting another goverment program. I shoud have made that more clear.

[Times Roman]

if you want to help a vet, buy me a beer! =)

[spywizard]

Last year payroll taxes withheld was almost $40,000 for me. And that was AFTER I exempted myself from payroll taxes for six months!!!

i'm right there with you man...

I set up a self directed pension plan from my company that shields that money so I don't pay those taxes.. it's that or I stop working for the year cause i won't do it..

and the dividend limits do not apply with the pension plan.. you'll need to get a company that can set it up for you.. I use Fidelity, but i have a good friend that is a VP here in the midwest division costs some money to set it up, but best decision i ever did..