I came across something interesting in history I was unaware of, FDR's G.I. Bill, which was according to wikipedia's summary: At first I was surprised to see how socialistic this legislation is, but thinking about the ideological climate of the world at the time and reading FDR as the then president, it didn't seem as unexpected. It does appear to have been useful as it helped people like Steve McQueen, who was able to enter acting because of it. Saying this, I still can't bring myself to agree with it as it fundamentally relies on the unconsenting management of others' money. Would you say that this fiscal qualm is trivial and that wealth distribution is inherent in the idea of government, or even go as far to say is therefore correctly and morally assumed? What are your thoughts?
What do you see wrong with this legislation ? What do you expect that people returning from the battlefield would be happy and ready for work ? Do you expect a kid that fought since the age of 18 to be ready to enter the job market in a instant ? The 1 year period is designed to let the veterans take a break , relax , enjoy their achievements , wash the grime of war and think about the future without starving . Also it is only natural that after a major conflict you would allow your drafted population to requalify and enter the economy . The finances should be the last concern to such a program . We're not talking about the regular population , we're talking about the army , the very institution that guarantees a state sovereignty and the freedom of the citizens . They have reeducation programs even in prisons , why the hell would you not give your heroes this chance ? If such program wouldn't exist it would create a potential mass of warfare & security experts in a deplorable economic position . The consequences would be this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean's_Eleven_(1960_film) on a nation wide scale . Think about having hundred of thousands or millions of war veterans that lack resources to start a civilian life . You're basically asking for civil war .
Consider it part of the cost of a highly trained all volunteer army that risks their lives so others don't have to. Taking into account what those guys are paid, it seems like the least we can do.
Repeating the answer above saves having to restate it. That legislation is one of the best legacies of FDRs presidency.
That's interesting. I'm not too surprised of your response Obamanation, since I presume you're a "neocon", but Rob Jones you struck me as more libertarian than most. Yes, they risk their lives and have a dangerous job, but I think there were other ways of achieving the same goal. I wouldn't oppose loans, similarly how I feel about student loans, but grants and the like I see differently. While you may fully support the bill, the moment others don't, the democratic flaw is exposed. If these soldiers had been conscripted, I may have a slightly different opinion. I'd be interested to know if other public sector workers with dangerous jobs (firemen, policemen etc) were treated similarly.
I've always considered myself a liberal. All my friends refer to me as the liberal of the group. No joke. I hear that comparison a lot. Every job has occupational hazards. Cops, FBI, Firemen, Skyrise window washers, Airplane pilots, Heavy equipment operators, construction workers, etc. Not every job has someone shooting an automatic weapon at you, or IEDs exploding next to your vehicles, removing limbs and killing your team mates. There is a huge difference. Frankly, the over glorification of our police and firemen pisses me off. From what I can tell, too many cops have a separatist, above the law, them and us type of attitude. Firemen spend most days working out in the firehouse(got a friend who is a fireman, he's ripped. Its a great gig). Outside of the military, you are going to have a hard time convincing me any of those other jobs are more dangerous than this job: [video=youtube;jvdMkKFqdm8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvdMkKFqdm8[/video]
My views overall are libertarian in nature. I don't see a conflict between that and providing benefits for the guys that protect our ability to hold those views. The military is one of the best ways to turn raw kids into productive adults, and I've had a chance to see paired examples where two otherwise similar kids parted when one went into the military and the other didnt. A lot of them come out with marketable job skills and either benefit society as a whole by going into a civilian correlary of their military MOS or else go on to college, where they generally outperform kids that enter straight from high school, because they're more disciplined and are not experiencing their first days outside mom and dad's rule like the kids that feel a need to party 24/7. I just don't see a downside. It's a win-win... they work in the military for pretty cheap pay largely because there are benefits afterward, and we get better members of society out of it than if they'd stayed home and played x-box on mom's sofa. It also provides an opportunity for some that'd otherwise be mired in the government sponsored miasma known as welfare to WORK their way out of the poverty cycle, bettering themselves and removing them from the position of being a drain on society.
Hey, you'll get no argument out of me that veterans are usually exemplary characters. I don't understand why they didn't just have decent pay to begin with, then some parts of the bill would have been unnecessary. Obamanation, I know they are rather poor comparisons and I agree with what you said about police. That's funny your friends see you as the Liberal. You must be one of the most fiscally responsible liberals then, unless when you say Liberal, you mean classically liberal? How do your views differ to your friends'?
I think Israel is going to have to deal with apartheid at some point. I don't really give a crap if the gays want to marry. I don't really care that religion is being removed from our public schools. I think drugs should be legal, all of them. I think young adults should have sex with at least a few people before they decide to settle down with just one. In fact, I don't think women should get married until age 25, and men until age 32.I believe in a minimum wage and some government regulation(anti-monopoly laws, and reasonable anti-polution laws for instance). For the record, I think you'd be surprised at how many liberals are fiscally responsible. The debate usually centers more around how much of a role the government should play in people's life, which is where I start to look like a conservative(neo-con still doesn't fit, though my foreign policy views lean a bit that way).
Very insightful, made an interesting read. Funny how I agree with everything you said apart from minimum wage and (from what I can gather) your view on foreign policy. You ever taken the political compass test? A global political poll on DP would be so interesting.
I just tried the political compass test in response to your post. Seemed a little simplistic. The answers on a multiple choice test that's better handled by an essay can be IMO misleading, but fwiw, I came out almost dead center. I was a tad over one grid section (1.12) to the right of center on economics, and on the other axis dealing with authority I was about 2 below center (-1.90 to be precise) closer to libertarian than authoritarian. That placed me on the inside edge of "libertarian right". Pretty much says I'm not neo-anything... About as close to center as it gets. What was odd was they provided examples galore of people in other grid sections, but were silent on this one but for Milton Freidman, who was even with me on the authority issue but on the extreme right (duh) economically. Apparently people in my quadrant generally die anonymously and are then eaten by our pets.
Yeah it's not perfect, but probably the best indicator there is considering the "left-right" crap is banded everywhere. It really pisses me off when people refer to nationalistic parties that have racial polices yet are just as 'leftist' economically as all the others, as "far right". The British National Party and National Front, for example. My coordinates are: 0.50 (economic) and -4.87 (social) making me just about dead centre economically but half way down the Y axis. I think the questions could be phrased better and the answers be made to reflect more choices. Some of the questions I answered didn't reflect properly my views, as a lot of my answers weren't applicable given I wouldn't have used any of the given ones in real life. In reality I think I'd be very far to the right economically and maybe slightly more Libertarian. Don't you love how the real-life comparisons of politicians and parties had no proper libertarians? Quite sad really. Here's another much simpler one: http://politicalquiz.net/ I find political quizzes fun EDIT: Here's how I did on the other lads This one, while more simplistic, is probably as reflective if not more so than the other one.
That test was too simplistic for my liking. Its review of my beliefs based on my answers to it's questions was only partially accurate.
Men marring at over 32 ? Srsly ? Why man ? BTW turns out I'm moderate (wow didn't knew that ) but I'm conservative and a social capitalist .
Obamanation, if you have a better idea how one could gauge political orientation, I'd like to hear it. I wouldn't mind having a go at making one myself and a more accurate one would be cool.