No worries. I think that I was not being as clear as I could have been. Generally, it seems to me that there are times when a war might be morally justified. For example, if we were invaded and defending ourselves or if we intervened to stop genocide. In these cases, although it would be expensive as hell, I would not quibble about the money involved because I believed the cause to be just and that (though I am old enough at this point to be prevented from personally serving) the solders would in effect be acting on my behalf (as an American) and I would be proud of them for that.
Fighting in an unjust war (and I will not pretend that I feel differently about the one that we are in) if, in my opinion, fiscally unsound because we are still spending huge amounts of money essentially for bad reasons.
That being said, the solders themselves still deserve our respect and they deserve to be taken care of later. Whatever the case, they were acting on our behalf.
One fact about the healthcare programs that has not been mentioned is that vets seeking care at VA facilities are means-tested. Private insurance and (fairly recently) Medicare are expected to pick up the cost of care. Granted, VA facilities represent a significant savings over the private sector, at least so far as insurance companies are concerned, but vets who have insurance or who have the income to do so are charged for their care.
PX and Navy exchanges, I’m pretty sure, are self-supporting and operate on non-approriated funds. This isn’t a “benefit” for which Congress appropriates money.
With the prices they charge I don’t think they are “self-supporting.” I don’t know, but perhaps the employees’ salaries, or the facilities costs or something is subsidized.
Plus, shopping at the exchance avoids state sales taxes, and places an additional burden on the states.
I agree that for an active-duty military person the PX is a necessity, since the pay rates are so low. For 100% disabled vets it’s a Godsend (and it should be open to more disabled vets, not just 100%). For retired officers who now make lots of money in the private sector it’s a priviledge subsidy, and it’s obscene.
Navy Exchanges andArmy Post Exchanges are not only self supporting but in the Navy Exchanges case provide money for the Navy Morale, Welfare and Recreation programs.
From the navy exchange site: “NEXCOM receives tax dollars for its shipboard stores, but it is otherwise self-supporting. Most of the profits fund morale, welfare, and recreational programs for sailors”
From the army post exchange site: “A government agency under the Department of Defense (DoD), it receives no funding from the DoD.”
Since these stores receive no funding from appropriated funds, who cares if retired officers shopt there? It has no effect on the federal budget. If a military base has a significant impact on the tax base of a locality “in lieu” funds are available to relieve the burden.
Kidding aside:
[ol]
[li]Do the exchanges pay rent to the government for the physical space they occupy? Or does the government let them use the space/facilities at no cost (i.e., subsidized).[/li][li]Are all personnel paid from the profits of the exchanges? Including my friend #####*, who as an active duty military person was recently charged with repainting the parking lines in a local exchange? Maybe he was lying when he told me he only got his regular military pay?[/li][li]MP security that guards the stores. Are they paid from the profits?[/li][li]Is the shipping of the goods sold in the commisary done on military or civilian transports? I don’t know, but when I can buy my groceries at less than half of what they cost in civilian stores, I wonder.[/li][/ol]
Name concealed on second thought, I don’t want to get him in trouble.
I think “unsubsidized” is a bit of a strong stance, but I could be wrong. After all, when has our government ever lied to us?
I’m not going to argue the issue here, plus, I don’t know the truth. You may well be right. Let’s just say that I’m skeptical.
No reason to be smarmy about it, I’m only human. :rolleyes:
Actually I got this idea when I was applying for a State “Veterans Only” benefit, and I was told by the State that one had to have served in wartime (and specified the dates within which one had to have served) to obtain this benefit.
I stand corrected, however, a veteran is defined as anyone who served in the military. That said, however, all “Veterans’ benefits” do not automatically accrue to every person who can be defined as a “veteran.”
They don’t. Handicapped spaces are still the closest spots to the hospital, bx, and everywhere else on base. Closer than General Officers spots. And there are a TON of handicapped spots. I swear half the BX and Comm. parking lots are handicapped and special reserved.
Doesn’t bother me though. Just the way things are.
You are way off base here. A veteran is ANYONE who has served in the military. It has NOTHING to do with being in during a war or having fought on the front lines. If you were in the military for a year you fit the definition of a veteran.
That’s interesting. I’ve never heard of this kind of restriction before not related to the events of a specific conflict (certainly not by a state). It’s also not beyond the realm of possibility that you were given bad information. Would you mind sharing more information about the circumstances? It’s possible we could help.
We must be talking regional differences here. Evidently there is no service-wide standard.
In the less-than-one-year-old Pearl Harbor Navy Exchange parking lot the officer’s (above O-6) reserved parking spaces are the closest ones to the front door. Come look.
At the regional Veteran’s treatment center, formerly high-ranking officers have parking spaces next to the building. VWDs get to park across the street, downhill, in some of the closest spaces in the parking structure. Generally (no pun intended), they are all full.
Conversely, in front of Tripler Hospital, all front-row spaces are for disabled parking.
Maybe in Utah they aren’t as arrogant as they are here.
Yeah, I don’t really care, either; but I don’t think that it’s right.
Funny, thinking again, maybe it is appropriate after all. From my combat experience I got the idea that most officers are mentally handicapped. Guess they need to park closer, so they don’t get lost.
S¬
…V
PX prices aren’t significantly cheaper than the outside world, at least IME, and I’ve shopped at exchanges nationwide. They’re mostly good for large purchases, since there is no tax. Otherwise, for most other stuff, Wal-Mart or Target is occasionally cheaper.
I’m all for doing what we can for our veterans – and for paying our current soldiers more, particularly at the enlisted level. BUt what would you expect us to do? Forever maintain obsolete and unnecessary bases simply for the benefit of the veterans living nearby? That’s beyond being unrealistic.