You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #77: I was not disabled. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-18-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. I was not disabled.
As I recall, I got a few hundred a month for college, I spent 2 weeks in a VA hospital at no cost (and lousy conditions), and I got a GI loan for my first house.

They did inform me that the hearing in my right ear was damaged but offered me no disability of any kind.

I did however leave with a bad attitude about anything military and an inclination to pacifism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Outlook for Defense spending is grim The Straight Story  Feb-17-09 03:50 PM   #0 
  - Reduce Defense spending by 10% n/t  Earth_First   Feb-17-09 03:52 PM   #1 
  - More. 90% and they're still in business.  Hawkeye-X   Feb-17-09 04:27 PM   #10 
     - I'd suggest you do a little research on what your talking about.  fuggbush21   Feb-18-09 10:43 AM   #47 
        - "Military spending is not a waste."  Arugula Latte   Feb-18-09 12:12 PM   #53 
        - reference my post further down.  fuggbush21   Feb-18-09 12:30 PM   #56 
           - Slashing the military and redirecting the money could create millions of jobs elsewhere.  Arugula Latte   Feb-18-09 12:44 PM   #63 
           - Right...  fuggbush21   Feb-18-09 01:02 PM   #67 
              - The military is the most wasteful, inefficient institution in the nation.  Arugula Latte   Feb-18-09 02:16 PM   #78 
           - Answer: Ploughshares.  Ignis   Feb-18-09 01:42 PM   #71 
        - With 7 posts, I suggest you try for a bit of common courtesy.  bobbolink   Feb-18-09 01:56 PM   #74 
  - Hold steady while people go hungry? WTF? Why isn't this being reduced? nt  Sarah Ibarruri   Feb-17-09 03:53 PM   #2 
  - One problem is that it's been an Offense Budget in the last 8 years....  LakeSamish706   Feb-17-09 03:53 PM   #3 
  - The War Department Budget should be cut by 50%  leftstreet   Feb-17-09 03:54 PM   #4 
  - Who would employ all those people thrown out onto the street? NT  MADem   Feb-17-09 04:01 PM   #6 
     - By this reasoning, the US should go to war somewhere! JOBS!!!1111  leftstreet   Feb-17-09 04:08 PM   #7 
     - Alot of "military" jobs are now done by civilians. n/t  Earth_First   Feb-17-09 04:09 PM   #8 
     - Yes, they are. And they are part of DOD "personnel costs" too.  MADem   Feb-17-09 04:36 PM   #15 
     - Please. Answer the question. Being a smartass isn't helpful or mature.  MADem   Feb-17-09 04:34 PM   #12 
     - Offer current unneeded employees buyout packages to take early retirement  NNN0LHI   Feb-17-09 05:14 PM   #19 
     - We did that in the nineties. The Cheney Plan. RIF.  MADem   Feb-17-09 09:22 PM   #26 
     - It's well documented that military spending has a poor return  Tesha   Feb-17-09 05:26 PM   #20 
     - It depends on what in the military is cut.  GA_ArmyVet   Feb-17-09 06:31 PM   #23 
     - Having the best army and arms has not led to successful wars.  olegramps   Feb-18-09 09:42 AM   #41 
        - True enough  GA_ArmyVet   Feb-18-09 05:37 PM   #83 
     - I didn't ask about the "poor return" of military spending. My question was very specific.  MADem   Feb-17-09 09:25 PM   #27 
        - The government can found a CONSTRUCTION worker just as easily as it can fund a DESTRUCTION worker.  Tesha   Feb-18-09 09:03 AM   #38 
           - Well, what I haven't "found" is an answer to my simple question.  MADem   Feb-18-09 12:19 PM   #55 
              - You haven't "found" an answer because you don't like the answer I'm giving you.  Tesha   Feb-18-09 12:38 PM   #59 
                 - How will you "re-deploy" them, though? You're not answering the question.  MADem   Feb-18-09 02:12 PM   #76 
                    - Why not enroll all my re-deployed workers in the relevant unions?  Tesha   Feb-18-09 05:58 PM   #84 
                       - You'd have to talk to the union bosses about that. They probably wouldn't  MADem   Feb-18-09 07:03 PM   #86 
                          - So your job is safe.  Tesha   Feb-18-09 07:27 PM   #87 
                             - My job? I'm old. I'm retired. My "job" is worrying about all the unemployed people in my  MADem   Feb-18-09 08:19 PM   #89 
     - People have tried to explain this to you, yet you persist  leftstreet   Feb-17-09 06:15 PM   #21 
     - You didn't answer the question. Don't tell me what "people" have or haven't done.  MADem   Feb-17-09 09:16 PM   #24 
        - Why not employ them in public works projects? Like restarting the WPA, the PWA, or the CCC again.  Selatius   Feb-18-09 12:15 PM   #54 
           - Doing what? You're going to put people who used their brains in their jobs  MADem   Feb-18-09 12:32 PM   #57 
           - Rebuilding our infrastructure, for instance? We got a lot of ruined infrastructure post-Bush.  Selatius   Feb-18-09 12:42 PM   #61 
              - I agree with Eisenhower.  MADem   Feb-18-09 01:12 PM   #69 
           - Are those the kind of jobs that will last 30 -40 years.  Thothmes   Feb-18-09 07:28 PM   #88 
     - The GI Bill is available to them for retraining.  Tierra_y_Libertad   Feb-18-09 09:28 AM   #40 
        - You didn't have children, I take it.  MADem   Feb-18-09 12:36 PM   #58 
           - How does that make them any different from other laid off workers?  Tierra_y_Libertad   Feb-18-09 12:42 PM   #60 
              - No they won't. When you're out, you're out--unless you qualify for retirement.  MADem   Feb-18-09 12:51 PM   #65 
                 - I sure as hell didn't retire from the military and I collected on all those.  Tierra_y_Libertad   Feb-18-09 12:55 PM   #66 
                    - If you were disabled, that's a different issue. Not every transitioning solider is disabled.  MADem   Feb-18-09 01:56 PM   #73 
                       - I was not disabled.  Tierra_y_Libertad   Feb-18-09 02:15 PM   #77 
                          - If you were in a VA hospital after you got out, it's because they needed to fix something before you  MADem   Feb-18-09 02:22 PM   #80 
                             - They never offered to fix it and I wouldn't have hung around anyway.  Tierra_y_Libertad   Feb-18-09 02:57 PM   #82 
                                - You are classified as a Vietnam Era vet if you left service in 65.  MADem   Feb-18-09 06:44 PM   #85 
     - The Department of Defense  fuggbush21   Feb-18-09 11:07 AM   #50 
     - historically, wars do grow countries out of hard economic times.  dysfunctional press   Feb-18-09 01:17 PM   #70 
     - The places that the money will be directed to that are not dead-end no-return wastes  Greyhound   Feb-17-09 04:19 PM   #9 
     - To answer that I would say:  The Straight Story   Feb-17-09 09:43 PM   #29 
        - But would those people recently out of uniform be the ones hired, or would  MADem   Feb-17-09 11:04 PM   #34 
  - Just so everyone "gets" this--the easiest place to cut defense spending is PERSONNEL COSTS  MADem   Feb-17-09 04:00 PM   #5 
  - You're right, but in the end DoD is military and will carry out it's orders.  Greyhound   Feb-17-09 04:29 PM   #11 
     - I'm thinking aircraft, too, for a big chunk.  MADem   Feb-17-09 04:46 PM   #16 
        - The administration can, and IMO should, direct the cuts to avoid just what you are talking about.  Greyhound   Feb-17-09 04:58 PM   #17 
           - Unfortunately, I think the old paradigm will prevail.  MADem   Feb-17-09 09:33 PM   #28 
              - I'm not sure if it's a bright side, but I think many, many people are going to join us in our  Greyhound   Feb-17-09 10:06 PM   #32 
                 - I can relate. Every time I turn around, another relative is out of work.  MADem   Feb-17-09 10:54 PM   #33 
  - I worked for the Department of Defense.  GentryDixon   Feb-17-09 04:35 PM   #13 
  - Were you part of that audit about ten years back?  MADem   Feb-17-09 09:43 PM   #30 
     - I don't remember an audit looking for trillions.  GentryDixon   Feb-18-09 07:48 AM   #35 
        - No. It was a DOD-wide audit, that happened in 2000. See attached.  MADem   Feb-18-09 10:23 AM   #45 
           - I remember this.  GentryDixon   Feb-18-09 10:53 AM   #49 
              - I was high enough up in the food chain to hear the shit hitting the fan!  MADem   Feb-18-09 12:08 PM   #51 
  - How can this be? I distinctly remember candidate Obama saying that he wanted to increase  bertman   Feb-17-09 04:36 PM   #14 
  - Oh for f*cks sake. It isn't defense ...it's offense.  L0oniX   Feb-17-09 05:01 PM   #18 
  - If we really want to DEFEND Americans then we need to spend most  Winterblues   Feb-17-09 06:22 PM   #22 
  - Why should a defence reduction be considered "grim"?  Canuckistanian   Feb-17-09 09:22 PM   #25 
  - Well, look at the source--it's "grim" from the govexec perspective. NT  MADem   Feb-17-09 09:45 PM   #31 
  - One point I would like to make regarding force reduction  jmowreader   Feb-18-09 08:21 AM   #36 
  - Just curious, do you know what the Constitution says about maintaining a standing army?  Bandit   Feb-18-09 08:34 AM   #37 
  - If you cut defense spending 90 percent, the troops WILL take a huge hit  jmowreader   Feb-18-09 10:21 AM   #43 
     - Very well put. And right on target, too. nt  MADem   Feb-18-09 12:10 PM   #52 
  - I went to college on the GI bill for retraining. I believe it's still available.  Tierra_y_Libertad   Feb-18-09 09:26 AM   #39 
  - It is...  jmowreader   Feb-18-09 10:23 AM   #44 
     - It's still a better deal than other people get when laid off.  Tierra_y_Libertad   Feb-18-09 10:39 AM   #46 
        - Other people don't get shot at as a consequence of their job. And other people don't "pay in" to  MADem   Feb-18-09 12:44 PM   #62 
           - I never got shot at and I collected for doing absolutely nothing beneficial to anyone.  Tierra_y_Libertad   Feb-18-09 01:12 PM   #68 
              - You were lucky but your experience isn't the paradigm. Nor is mine. Certainly not nowadays.  MADem   Feb-18-09 01:52 PM   #72 
                 - You're right, disabled vets not combat vets.  Tierra_y_Libertad   Feb-18-09 02:06 PM   #75 
  - Good post. Now for the big question, retrain to do what?  Greyhound   Feb-18-09 02:16 PM   #79 
     - I'm going to start another thread in just a few minutes...  jmowreader   Feb-18-09 02:50 PM   #81 
        - Did you post it yet? I haven't found it. n/t  Greyhound   Feb-19-09 01:02 AM   #90 
           - I got pulled away, sorry...  jmowreader   Feb-19-09 11:29 AM   #91 
  - $650,000,000,000.00  RUMMYisFROSTED   Feb-18-09 09:48 AM   #42 
  - The military is a huge burden on the nation and the world.  TWiley   Feb-18-09 10:43 AM   #48 
  - Time to cut the military  MadHound   Feb-18-09 12:45 PM   #64 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC