A four year hitch won't get you the same benefits that retiring at 20-25 years will get you.
Obama lifts 20 year ban on US entry for those with HIV
- Thread starter Floptical
- Start date
A four year hitch won't get you the same benefits that retiring at 20-25 years will get you.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
The same is true for all of government.
The problem is the people that think they need everything.
"Our kids won't learn anything in school if they don't have a five million dollar track and field with lights and electronic scoreboard, and cushy seats, and concession stands!"
i was referring to the fact that through much of the war the standard issue body armor was in short supply the hummers that are on active duty in dangerous areas do no have the required armor so sand bags and scrap metal have been attached to vehicles etc... it's not how the worlds most powerful military force should operate
http://www.slate.com/id/2095705/
Syrup Beaver
pants log
The retarded over-emphasis of sports in public education is sickening to begin with but that's a whole different soapbox for me to climb.
which only goes right back them. not that it's a bad thing that they money is going back to the people that paid it but it's not like a new expensive sports complex in a school benefits anyone except for the people in that school's district.
No fucking shit but that has got jack squat to do with a goddamn budget surplus.
i'm just saying if it wasn't given away as a tax break, maybe some would be there to allocate to the armed forces after the normal military budget was made inadequate by the events on 9/11.
also at the time of bushes election it was said to be a trillion dollar surplus, how much was bushes tax break?
No, it wouldn't have been. Because the defense budget was already HALF A FUCKING TRILLION DOLLARS. An extra two billion is barely a drop in the bucket and more importantly the budget was not inadequate after 9/11. The problem was that the money the military did have was spent on stupid shit that had nothing to do with the operation at hand and many of the problems involved in the insurgencies were due to logistical and tactical pooch screws, not a mere lack of money.
That being said, the money had been allocated for the tax breaks before 9/11.
not only was it barely a two billion dollar surplus that wasn't really a surplus since that money was supposed to be used elsewhere to begin with but no one claimed it was a TRillion. wtf dudesee you keep asking me what my point is and as i give little examples aimed directly at how the big picture effects you and only you, you keep responding as if each post isn't part of the whole discussion when every post i've made has been intertwined trying to get my point across to you. you're taking my hypothetical at face value and dismissing my point.
so yea i'm just gunna stop
If you haven't figured it out yet, arguing with him is pointless, most times he just rants to hear himself rant and his object is more to annoy the opponent than to actually promote a side.
I'm not asking you what your point is. I know what your point is. The problem is that your point doesn't actually jive with the discussion because that "budget surplus" couldn't have gone to the troops and it wouldn't have made one lick of difference had it done so.
That's not how government spending works. The failures of the military in the middle east were tactical, not financial. Two billion dollars against half a trillion. Seriously. The lack of body armor was not due to a lack of money and thus would not have been fixed with that two billion dollars.
hypothetical? do you even remember what your first post on the subject was?
whether or not bush was actually involved in starting the process to lift this ban, i asked a simple question and everyone just got stupid
why are no hornets coming out?
because there was no money from the surplus to buy fuel
