Members of the military must learn to connect with American civilians

[LineInTheSand]

See the problem is, Scout, anytime someone says something you don't like you automatically jump to "it's just Fox News" or you say "no."

I'm going to assume that your experience with the "welfare queens" is fairly limited, due to the Army bubble you've lived in since 2001 or so, but I would guess your wife has some pretty telling opinions based on what she's seen in the hospital. I know my father's 30 years of ER experience would be interesting as well. And I know my wife's experience in the pharmacy is too.

Whether you like it or not, and I don't, welfare queens are a product of a dependency-induced population. It infects blacks, whites, Asians, Indians (both kinds), Hispanics and everyone else. It's socio-economic, not based on race, but it's very real and it's very prevalent, independent of what you or Rachel Maddow say.

Now we can pretend that they just need a helping hand, and the people who do "get out" are just freaks of nature. We can pretend that the middle class and the upper class keep "holding them down." But that just wouldn't be true.

The fact of the matter is, I pay more in taxes, as a percentage of my total income and as a total $$ amount than a majority of the U.S. population, and I'm not making millions. I get a pay raise and I see a HUGE chunk of that raise go to the U.S. federal government, the state of Maryland and Montgomery County. I also pay into my 401k and contribute to my insurance. The latter two things I control. And those first three I can control by letting my feet do the talking, when I move back to VA.

I know you feel strongly about the plight of the lower classes, and I'm sure it's a constant internal struggle to take the money that the federal government gives you, as it wastes money elsewhere, and while you pocket a NICE chunk of a paycheck by way of non-taxed BAH, BUT the fact that you have yet to live in a household where both husband and wife take the taxes hit, doesn't lend credibility. And I would guess that along the road, you've selected a state without a state income tax as your legal residence (maybe like Tennessee)?

That's not to say you haven't earned all of that. But that is to say that maybe you aren't as connected with the concerns of the actual civilian population as you think you are.... which is the topic of the article I orginally posted.

 

[scoutpilot]

That's my point. The original author never gives specifics about who exactly is supposed to be more in touch with the civilian world or how they should do it. I'd argue that even with some of the more archaic restrictions here at USMA, I am pretty in touch with my ROTC and civilian peers. I would also agree that the senior officers who have been in for 20+ years are probably not as in touch as we like to think or need to be. But where does that disconnect occur, and what does the author expect the military to do? Until that question is answered, the article is simply reiterating what others have already said and what most people agree is true.

If DoD can give my generation a plan now, we will be much better prepared to solve this problem in the future.

Heaven forbid you think of a plan on your own...

 

[LineInTheSand]

That's my point. The original author never gives specifics about who exactly is supposed to be more in touch with the civilian world or how they should do it. I'd argue that even with some of the more archaic restrictions here at USMA, I am pretty in touch with my ROTC and civilian peers. I would also agree that the senior officers who have been in for 20+ years are probably not as in touch as we like to think or need to be. But where does that disconnect occur, and what does the author expect the military to do? Until that question is answered, the article is simply reiterating what others have already said and what most people agree is true.

If DoD can give my generation a plan now, we will be much better prepared to solve this problem in the future.

Well, the author is a rear admiral, so I'm guessing he's not as connected as he could be either. While USMA is a military school, you'll encounted some of the same issues your civilian college peers do. You are also connected through networks most senior officers would only have dreamed of. The less time you're in the easier it is to transition back.

Where I experienced this disconnect was on my ship. We would go out for 2 months, in for 2, out for 2, in for 2. It was hard to get any kind of roots in the community. When we were in port, we were still on the ship working during the day. Everything in my life was USCG-centric. My one housemate was a shipmate and classmate, our other housemate was also a classmate and an officer on our sister ship.

When I transfered to HQ, it was a more corporate atmosphere. I joined a beer league hockey team and an alumni soccer league. I made friends and did things on the weekends. Yes, my life was still very USCG-centric, but I was able to branch out and see the world. Granted, that world was D.C. which is hardly representative of the country as a whole. We're all living off of Uncle Sams teet here. But I at least connected more with the civilian population.

And then, in 2011, I got out. And I have to say, it has taken me about 1.5 years to really feel like the Coast Guard is no longer my home. Yes, I will always be a Coast Guard veteran and a CGA alum, but the service is not my place anymore. So I guess I've made the transition. I can tell you, the person I was in 2007 was not ready to be totally dropped into a world that doesn't have regular promotion periods and benefits.

 

[Christcorp]

108 MILLION people are on some form of Welfare. "This DOESN'T INCLUDE Social Security or Medicare". 45 Million people are now on food stamps. 54 Million are on medicaid.

I've seen first hand, with my own aunt, as I was visiting and social services stopped by for their quarterly counseling. I assumed they would counsel my aunt on educational or work opportunities. How to better raise her 3 kids; all with different fathers. No, I was wrong. They spent 5 minutes handing out and discussing pamphlets about healthy nutrition. The next 20-25 minutes was about other programs that she and her kids were eligible for, and how to apply for this additional "financial assistance".

It's a catch-22. People say they can't live on a minimum wage; (Which they AREN'T SUPPOSE TO). Then, the welfare system pays much higher than minimum wage; so you net more money by staying at home than even trying to find a job. And instead of trying to help individuals out of poverty, the politicians, mainly from the left, want to give just enough to make the "Poor" feel that someone cares; yet the government can still maintain control and power over these people. And no, the answer isn't to increase the minimum wage. It's to make welfare LESS ATTRACTIVE. And god forbid if you make someone receiving welfare actually have to WORK for that free money. (Work Fare).

While i respect the original article about military members connecting more with American citizens, I just don't buy that a general or admiral can be in touch with the average American on the street. Maybe when they were an 0-1 thru 0-4. Too many people think that the military is just a big pot of money that's being wasted. But the truth is, the military is the one government agency that actually redistributes taxes. When you look at the local communities that flourish because of a local military base; contracts for services and supplies; manufacturing contracts; etc.... I'm surprised the liberal left isn't pro-military. The military takes tax dollars and creates jobs. "More civilian than military". The liberal left tax dollars are simply "Hand outs" that don't create jobs. They create dependency.

 

[scoutpilot]

See the problem is, Scout, anytime someone says something you don't like you automatically jump to "it's just Fox News" or you say "no."

I'm going to assume that your experience with the "welfare queens" is fairly limited, due to the Army bubble you've lived in since 2001 or so, but I would guess your wife has some pretty telling opinions based on what she's seen in the hospital. I know my father's 30 years of ER experience would be interesting as well. And I know my wife's experience in the pharmacy is too.

Whether you like it or not, and I don't, welfare queens are a product of a dependency-induced population. It infects blacks, whites, Asians, Indians (both kinds), Hispanics and everyone else. It's socio-economic, not based on race, but it's very real and it's very prevalent, independent of what you or Rachel Maddow say.

Now we can pretend that they just need a helping hand, and the people who do "get out" are just freaks of nature. We can pretend that the middle class and the upper class keep "holding them down." But that just wouldn't be true.

The fact of the matter is, I pay more in taxes, as a percentage of my total income and as a total $$ amount than a majority of the U.S. population, and I'm not making millions. I get a pay raise and I see a HUGE chunk of that raise go to the U.S. federal government, the state of Maryland and Montgomery County. I also pay into my 401k and contribute to my insurance. The latter two things I control. And those first three I can control by letting my feet do the talking, when I move back to VA.

I know you feel strongly about the plight of the lower classes, and I'm sure it's a constant internal struggle to take the money that the federal government gives you, as it wastes money elsewhere, and while you pocket a NICE chunk of a paycheck by way of non-taxed BAH, BUT the fact that you have yet to live in a household where both husband and wife take the taxes hit, doesn't lend credibility. And I would guess that along the road, you've selected a state without a state income tax as your legal residence (maybe like Tennessee)?

That's not to say you haven't earned all of that. But that is to say that maybe you aren't as connected with the concerns of the actual civilian population as you think you are.... which is the topic of the article I orginally posted.

You may have noticed that it's always the same people saying the ridiculous stuff that I disagree with. Since they frequently trot out the same tired right- wing tropes and anecdotes, the counter arguments don't change much.

Speaking of tropes and anecdotes, I noticed a distinct lack of any data in your response. I'm sure your pops has many fine anecdotes from his experience which mirror those of my wife. The problem with that is that an ER has a horrible sampling bias. It's not representative of the population at large, nor of the lower income classes. That should be simple to understand. And as I often say, the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes," not "data."

You paid more in taxes than most Americans. Good for you. You also made more than most American households. My wife and I paid more in taxes than the average American household makes. Is that wrong? I dunno. We did make a huge amount of money. And that was with me getting 6 months tax free due to deployment.

Paying taxes sucks, I'll grant you. But don't lecture as though you're a seasoned civilian taxpayer, long divorced from the military cushion. By your admission you received free college, grad school, surgery, and rehab all on the government dime. All for doing the minimum service obligation, for which you received a paycheck the whole time. Taxes were your best friend back then. Obviously I know how that works. Let's be honest about it though: you got a lot from taxes. Just as many do.

Truth be told, I don't have any special concern for the plight of the lower classes. The poor and stupid aren't a special love of mine. But, my love of economics and education in that field drives me to demand that the whole argument be made on data and data alone, as that's the only way to move toward pareto efficiency. Properly vetted data doesn't lie. Despite the common perceptions of the "overtaxed rich" or the "untaxed 47%" the reality is that the US tax burden is both flatter and lower than most people know. Talking points are great, but if they're not based on data, they're just noise.

So argue against a progressive tax structure. Argue against social welfare. Argue for a flat tax. Argue for death panels. Argue against TennCare and CHIP. Whatever. Just do it with data and evidence, and not anecdotes or (yes, I'll say it again) Fox News talking points (e.g. decrying the rise of teen pregnancy and entitlements when both are in better shape now than they have ever been), and when you do so, have some idea of the consequences of the countervailing course of action. (I recognize the existence of dozens of liberal tropes and MSNBC talking points, but SAF has a definite self-selection bias away from those views).

My original point remains....whether you like the tax structure or not, we don't pay an inordinate tax burden in this country, and we don't pay for the country we want.

 

[LineInTheSand]

You may have noticed that it's always the same people saying the ridiculous stuff that I disagree with. Since they frequently trot out the same tired right- wing tropes and anecdotes, the counter arguments don't change much.

Speaking of tropes and anecdotes, I noticed a distinct lack of any data in your response. I'm sure your pops has many fine anecdotes from his experience which mirror those of my wife. The problem with that is that an ER has a horrible sampling bias. It's not representative of the population at large, nor of the lower income classes. That should be simple to understand. And as I often say, the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes," not "data."

You paid more in taxes than most Americans. Good for you. You also made more than most American households. My wife and I paid more in taxes than the average American household makes. Is that wrong? I dunno. We did make a huge amount of money. And that was with me getting 6 months tax free due to deployment.

Paying taxes sucks, I'll grant you. But don't lecture as though you're a seasoned civilian taxpayer, long divorced from the military cushion. By your admission you received free college, grad school, surgery, and rehab all on the government dime. All for doing the minimum service obligation, for which you received a paycheck the whole time. Taxes were your best friend back then. Obviously I know how that works. Let's be honest about it though: you got a lot from taxes. Just as many do.

Truth be told, I don't have any special concern for the plight of the lower classes. The poor and stupid aren't a special love of mine. But, my love of economics and education in that field drives me to demand that the whole argument be made on data and data alone, as that's the only way to move toward pareto efficiency. Properly vetted data doesn't lie. Despite the common perceptions of the "overtaxed rich" or the "untaxed 47%" the reality is that the US tax burden is both flatter and lower than most people know. Talking points are great, but if they're not based on data, they're just noise.

So argue against a progressive tax structure. Argue against social welfare. Argue for a flat tax. Argue for death panels. Argue against TennCare and CHIP. Whatever. Just do it with data and evidence, and not anecdotes or (yes, I'll say it again) Fox News talking points (e.g. decrying the rise of teen pregnancy and entitlements when both are in better shape now than they have ever been), and when you do so, have some idea of the consequences of the countervailing course of action. (I recognize the existence of dozens of liberal tropes and MSNBC talking points, but SAF has a definite self-selection bias away from those views).

My original point remains....whether you like the tax structure or not, we don't pay an inordinate tax burden in this country, and we don't pay for the country we want.

Oh, I know I benefitted from the taxpayer salary I made. I had 9 years (I'm including CGA here, don't want to short-change the tax payer) of government funded salary. For 5 years of that I also received a BAH was that nice. For 3 of those years it was a DC BAH which is very nice. That BAH was not taxed. The entire time I was a legal resident of Tennessee, so I also did not pay state income taxes. I also received a fully funded undergrad experience at the Coast Guard Academy and a Post-9/11 GI Bill funded grad school degree from George Washington University. No one is more willing to point out how I, and my wife, who was an officer in the Public Health Service, have benefited from the tax payers. And I will admit, while you receive it, you take it for granted. And I will admit I'm not sure I deserved all that I received.

But I don't think that's what's being discussed. I "gave" to get. I signed on and served for 5 years. I don't think anyone here is saying you should "receive"! You sure as hell should, you PAID. I think what's being discussed here is, if you're going to "receive" you better have to "pay". It's not hard to maintain that many do NOT pay more/equal to what they receive. A billionaire paying 5% is likely paying more than he receives. A person making $15,000 a year, living in government housing, but paying nothing is taking more than they invest. And the difference is you and me, paying more than we receive some someone can receive more than they pay. Any why? Because I should feel bad for them? I don't.

But the difference between us, my 2002-2011 time in v. your 2001-2013 time in is, I have been "divorced" from that source for 2 years and my wife has been divorced from that source for a year (USPHS pay that is, she's still a fed). 100% of what we make is taxed. And while we make a very good living, I have no need to pay more. That's no unpatriotic. It's not unreasonable. I find the people who are the most vocal for others to pay more of the ones paying less.

And as you notice the "right wing" talking points, I'm sure just as many could point to you with your more liberal talking points.

And yes, the ER may not be the best cross section of the population, nor maybe the hospital my wife worked in, nor the retail pharmacies her friends work in, but then I wonder where exactly this amazing cross section I'm missing is.

I 100% recogonize I didn't give data (oh wait, I just said 100% so I guess I did), but I'm seeing a lack in an data from you as well.

Besides identifying people's angle and given broad statements about how you pay taxes too... where is your data? Tax brackets and rates? Come on.

Let's talk unfunded liabilites!

But the country I would want is more than attainable. Not with the way we spend now. Scout, you and a bunch of your buddies would have to find new jobs too. DOD spending has far too much waste, which most taxpayers wouldn't want. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme of the highest order, and I'm not just using "Ponzi" as a talking point... it cannot be sustained (no Ponzi scheme can). There are a number of cabinet level departments that don't need to exist. There are redundant agencies, services and programs.

Somehow I bet my state could fund a police force and maintain county and state roads without wasting tens of millions a year on the ICC and I-495 toll roads no one uses. Somehow I bet I could drive around DC without having 5 different kinds of federal law enforcement officers looking at me (all trained at a number of FLETCs across the country).

It's not about being taxed to provide for an America we all want, we can already buy THAT. It's about eliminated the overhead-waste from what we already pay to make it a reality.

But if you disagree, you're welcome to provide "data."

 

[LineInTheSand]

You paid more in taxes than most Americans. Good for you. You also made more than most American households. My wife and I paid more in taxes than the average American household makes. Is that wrong? I dunno. We did make a huge amount of money. And that was with me getting 6 months tax free due to deployment.

But you did change your legal residence to Tennessee, right, Scout? It's far to attractive not to pay those pesky state income taxes. But how can you justify that? How are you going to see the America you want if you're willing to take any tax break you can.... OR does it not matter? Maybe we don't need an America we want? But if that's true... then how would you justify those higher taxes?

How many people on base have TN, FL or AK license plates?

 

[BigBear]

Heaven forbid you think of a plan on your own...

Heaven forbid senior leaders are asked to lead

 

[Frankie]

Heaven forbid this conversation gets back on track.

This went from how disconnected the military is to civilians, to a battle of political and economic views. I would hope that you former and current officers would be able to settle your differences privately, or make a separate thread about this subject.

But I'll probably get shot down for my comment and all this will continue regardless.

 

[flieger83]

I'd like to see it get back on track before I have to put on the Moderator Hat and "redirect" it...

Of course, the MOD in charge of this thread might just do that anyway.

Steve
(Mod Hat in waiting)

 

[scoutpilot]

But you did change your legal residence to Tennessee, right, Scout? It's far to attractive not to pay those pesky state income taxes. But how can you justify that? How are you going to see the America you want if you're willing to take any tax break you can.... OR does it not matter? Maybe we don't need an America we want? But if that's true... then how would you justify those higher taxes?

How many people on base have TN, FL or AK license plates?

Nope. I'm still an Ohio resident. But that's beside the point. We ALL take tax breaks. That's what that data I posted earlier showed. People gripe about the horrible 34% tax rate on the rich, but even they manage to whittle it down into the 20s. Regardless of the rates, the reality is that we're not actually paying all that much.

Sure, you've paid 100% taxes for a whole two years. And your wife has for one now. My wife's paid them for 7, so let's call that one a draw. It's not like the math involved is a mystery.

You bring up a good point, though, and one we ought to discuss: do the residency laws and tax deferments/exemptions only serve to increase the distance between the military and civilian cultures?

 

[Christcorp]

Heaven forbid this conversation gets back on track.

This went from how disconnected the military is to civilians, to a battle of political and economic views. I would hope that you former and current officers would be able to settle your differences privately, or make a separate thread about this subject.

But I'll probably get shot down for my comment and all this will continue regardless.

Just because we don't agree, doesn't mean you'll be shot down. "Although, Scout likes to shoot when you disagree with him". LOL!!!

The truth is; this discussion IS ON TRACK. The subject was how the Military members need to connect more with American Civilians. How can we do that, until we agree on: 1) What we are serving for. 2) What the civilians expect of us. 3) The financial/economic attitude of the American society?

The problem boils down to ignorance. Many civilians believe that the DOD is some massive money pit in our government spending. The truth is; unlike medicaid, medicare, and most social welfare programs, which make up the majority of our government's spending; "Along with interest on the debt"; the majority of defense spending, recycles the money. The money goes to military employees, civilian employees, civilian contractors, manufacturers, construction companies, local utilities, local communities, etc... Yes, some of the money is spent on weapons that are a one time purchase, but most of the money that goes to the department of defense is distributed right back out to the economy in the form of jobs, services, and products. Very little of the other government spending does this. They have some employees, but most of that money is spent on bureaucracy and distribution to recipients. Yes, the recipients spend that money, but they were going to spend it no matter where they received the money. These recipients are creating jobs or recycling the money like the military does.

But until the left stops B.S.ing the citizens that the military is the big WASTE of government money, and that it's money should go to MORE social services programs, food stamps, medicaid, etc..., we won't be able to truly connect with the American civilians. Most think they know, but they don't. Most americans have no idea how the government works. How bills/laws are made. That the constitution is NOT a list of citizen's rights, but a list of government's "limitations". Most american citizens are ignorant. A good percentage doesn't even know why the military even exists. Then again; we also have politicians who are using our military in police actions around the world that they have no business allowing. And a congress that doesn't have the balls to actually make a declaration of war.

So yes, this thread is definitely on target. It's just not on the path you'd like. There's more to connecting with the american civilians than telling them how much we appreciate their support. THEY need to know why we exist. They need to know that the reason they are ALLOWED to disagree and protest, is because of the military. They need to know that a lot of what they believe is B.S. and they have been lied to. The admiral thinks the military needs to connect more with american civilians???? I say that the american civilians need to connect more with ALL of their government. They need to educate themselves to know that the federal government works FOR THEM and their STATES, NOT the other way around. That the federal government needs to get rid of the TSA; department of homeland security; stop using drones on american citizens; get a real handle on illegal immigrants; etc... The military might need to connect more with american civilians; but american civilians need to get educated and connect more with the entire government. Stop with the entitlement mentality. Be responsible for their own actions. And stop blaming society for all their screw ups. If you apply for federal assistance, that's not your fault. If you STAY on federal assistance, that's TOTALLY your fault.

 

[LineInTheSand]

CC I think you're reading this the exact opposite that I am. I also think your approach is the typical DOD approach.

You're saying "American's need to learn more about..."

I don't disagree with that, by the way.

Kirby is saying "Service members need to learn more about..."

Which I also don't disagree with.

I was a PAO for five years (and based on the comments on Kirby's article, it's clear not everyone likes a PAO...unless they get press, but that's another story). We constantly engaged the public. Air shows, conferences, booths are fairs and festivals... whatever. I think there's plenty of time, energy and money put forward to educate the public (and I didn't even mention the services' motion picture offices).

What we don't do a good job of is, educated the other way. TAPs, as it relates to reintegrating with the public, focuses specifically on searching for jobs. Wear a conservative tie... create marketing cards.... do this with your resume.

What you aren't aware of is how the job market is, how the private sector work place is, the stigma of service, what are hot button items for the public, etc etc etc.

My Facebook wall blew up when Tuition Assistance was pulled for a short time, friends from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard all had something to say. You know who didn't have much to say? Everyone else. There are other concerns for them, like tax penalties to their healthcare plans thanks to Obama Care aka the Affordable Care Act. Some are worried about contracts or job cuts or pay cuts. Whatever. They aren't too worked up about a reduction in tuition assistance for 1% of the population.

While I understand what you're saying CC, and for the most part agree, I think Kirby is saying something different. He's not saying we need more airshows or more comms plans for marketing the services.... he's saying open your eyes and ears and listen to the other 99% that's gone about it's business, independent of your service.

 

[Jcleppe]

Heaven forbid senior leaders are asked to lead

There's a big difference between leading and baby sitting.

Nobody should have to formulate an official plan for you to figure out how to better communicate with the civilian world.

 

[Christcorp]

LITS: I agree. I even agree with Kirby. My main point was that in our engagement and "connecting" with American Civilians, part of that needs to be in educating them. To what we do; why we do it; the truths, lies, and stereotypes.

Yes, we also need to connect more with the civilian community when it comes to their expectations, the local economy, our relationship with each other, etc... I definitely agree we need to connect and learn more about the civilian society and culture.

I just think there are too many lies and misinformation about the military. Especially when it comes to the financials and national budget. This forces us to defend ourselves instead of integrating. In our state, there's a really could public service campaign that talks about the guard as being your neighbors. Those you went to high school with. Those there to help with local emergencies and national defense. I'd like to see a campaign about our active duty forces too. That active members too are part of the local community. That they are an economic attribute. That their kids go to the local public schools; they go to the local churches; they don't all live on base; that they aren't all wealthy individuals sucking tax dollars.

In communities that have military bases/posts, this is more well known. There's a lot of local cooperation between the community and the base/post. Chamber of commerce is usually very involved with the local military. Most communities with a military base have it figured out. Unfortunately, most civilian communities don't have a military base/post nearby. The overwhelming majority of the country knows about the military from the media and biased politicians. They don't know that we contribute back much more than we take in tax dollars. That's not even counting our willingness to sacrifice our lives. The same can't be said for most other government spending. Yet, the military gets grouped in with all these other high percentage spending sources. Sources that don't give anything really back to the community, work force, tax base, etc... Hell, even though housing and food is tax free, most people don't even realize that we pay INCOME TAX on pay that came FROM taxes. "Gotta love how our government can tax the same dollars 5,6.....10 times."

Does the military have it's benefits? Hell yes. Financially, it's not the greatest pay, but that depends on your job. In my job, I easily doubled my pay when I walked out the gate. Some jobs are much lower pay on the outside. Many forget that for the individual who does stay in 20+ years, and didn't die or get all messed up, that they also gave up a lot. they basically RENTED an apartment/house for that entire time. They didn't build up any equity in a home. "Minus the possibility of the last few years at your last base". But yes, there are a lot of benefits for military personnel. But considering what it costs the military member and their family, it isn't as big of a thing that people like Scout wants us to believe. Even if you do stay 20 years and can retire, the retirement money isn't totally free. I pay hefty taxes on that income too. And that retirement money, along with my starting pay in my new civilian job, doesn't equal the net worth of my civilian peers I'm working along side, who has been making a lot more than me for 20 years, has a lot of equity in their house, is living in the community where they probably grew up and at least has known most of their neighbors for decades. Military members usually retire close to their last assignment or similar. Very few move HOME to where they grew up and have family.

So yes, we need to learn more about our local communities, local economics, local people, etc... but we need to also help the civilians learn more about the military. And not the B.S. political views that the media and many politicians try to promote.

 

[cb7893]

The problem boils down to ignorance. Many civilians believe that the DOD is some massive money pit in our government spending. The truth is; unlike medicaid, medicare, and most social welfare programs, which make up the majority of our government's spending; "Along with interest on the debt"; the majority of defense spending, recycles the money. The money goes to military employees, civilian employees, civilian contractors, manufacturers, construction companies, local utilities, local communities, etc... Yes, some of the money is spent on weapons that are a one time purchase, but most of the money that goes to the department of defense is distributed right back out to the economy in the form of jobs, services, and products. Very little of the other government spending does this. They have some employees, but most of that money is spent on bureaucracy and distribution to recipients. Yes, the recipients spend that money, but they were going to spend it no matter where they received the money. These recipients are creating jobs or recycling the money like the military does.

Count President Eisenhower among those ignorant civilians.

This is from an interview with David Stockman, Reagan's Director of OMB:

So when was the real golden age, the last time fiscal and monetary policy was good and true?

Well it was the 1950s, under Eisenhower. I demonstrate that Eisenhower was the paragon. Eisenhower said taxes are too high, but he was still an orthodox man who believed you needed to balance the budget first and then earn the right to cut taxes—not cut taxes and hope you grow out of it. Eisenhower was the anti–Newt Gingrich of his day.

You tie modesty in fiscal affairs to a modesty in foreign and defense policy, which was a characteristic of Eisenhower-era Republicans—and notably lacking in Bush-era Republicans.

Well, Eisenhower wound down the Korean War and cut the defense budget. He really cut deeply and personally involved himself, and said he would have a balanced budget before we cut taxes. Eisenhower was the opposite of today’s military Keynesians, who say we can’t cut the defense budget because it will lead to job loss. In 1953 he said that defense spending was an inherent waste. Even a left-wing community organizer was never this eloquent on the ultimate cost of high defense spending. The warfare state is a big piece of my thinking. It disables the Republicans, who are supposed to be the conservative party, on fiscal policy.

If you Google "Eisenhower Military Industrial Complex" you can find more specifics.

 

[BigBear]

There's a big difference between leading and baby sitting.

Nobody should have to formulate an official plan for you to figure out how to better communicate with the civilian world.

My generation communicates with the civilian world through social media and hanging out with friends. Somehow I don't think that is what the author envisions.

Are we supposed to host PL town hall meetings on Bragg Blvd.? Stop random strangers when we go on leave who look like they are probably civilians and ask how they feel about a myriad of political issues? I don't really see any realistic and effective solutions being discussed, and I think there is a reason for that. Short of having officers rotate between military and civilian status, there isn't a really effective way to get that civilian experience. Now that opens up a whole new debate on active vs. guard vs. reserve, etc.

So what does Kirby think we should actually DO?

 

[LineInTheSand]

Count President Eisenhower among those ignorant civilians.

This is from an interview with David Stockman, Reagan's Director of OMB:

Stockman's book, "The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America" was released today. Looks interesting.

 

[LineInTheSand]

My generation communicates with the civilian world through social media and hanging out with friends. Somehow I don't think that is what the author envisions.

Now that opens up a whole new debate on active vs. guard vs. reserve, etc.

So what does Kirby think we should actually DO?

Actually, Kirby would probably support social media interaction. CHINFO has embraced it, including under his leadership.

As far as active duty v. national guard v. reserves is concerned.... Active duty has a worse grasp on the civilian world than the other too. While I would maintain that reserves and national guard are not as good at "soldiering" I think they are much more well-rounded, with regards to what I always thought of as "the real world" aka, the civilian private/public sector.

 

[BigBear]

Actually, Kirby would probably support social media interaction. CHINFO has embraced it, including under his leadership.

I agree, but there is no one page that can equate to the US Army, etc. Facebook page. Is the Army supposed to friend request every American citizen?

edit: I know this is unreasonable. I am trying to facilitate a discussion on what steps can actually be made versus a debate on economic policy