Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ban of NASCAR military sponsors sought
UPI ^ | 16 Feb 11 | staff

Posted on 02/16/2011 10:59:30 AM PST by saganite

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last
To: Frantzie

Wouldn’t not hiring the 15,500 new IRS agents for BaraqqiCare save even more money?

61 posted on 02/16/2011 5:27:40 PM PST by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I can hear it now:

“Just because Washington did it, doesn’t mean we should do it.”

62 posted on 02/16/2011 7:12:10 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain & proud of it: Truly Supporting the Troops means praying for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
What I would like to see is that the military not enlist young married men at all. It puts too much hardship on them, and as you point out, they are at poverty levels already. This does great damage to all concerned. If manning is such a problem then we do need a draft, or a smaller mission. I was in the military long enough to verify your statement about the quality of life of these young families. It's very upsetting that the families of those who serve should live this way. Not only that, the soldier's effectiveness is compromised by constantly agonizing over their families back home. I don't need to discuss the levels of divorce and violence involved. It's sky high. Much of this problem is simply due to the youth of the people we're discussing. NCOs are typically old enough to handle it much better, but some 19 year old kid with a wife and two children? Forget about it. I think this is a very serious unreported problem in our military.
63 posted on 02/17/2011 11:44:33 PM PST by Batrachian (9/11 confirmed everything I already knew about Islam. Not that it needed much confirming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
My late uncle joined to get medical help for his wife. He ended up going from E-1 to O-5 and C.O. of a ship. He did 30 years. They remained married till death did they part. Yea I saw some marriages break up even in the E-6 ranks. I also saw E-3's and E-4's with solid marriages.

Draft? LOL what next you'll order a mandatory divorce as well if drafted then? Manning is a problem because of congress. Congress sets the allowed number of troops and that number has not changed but a few thousand since 1996 under Clinton. No not even 9/11 changed it but by a few thousand. Men were turned away at 9/11 because Mr Global Trade King didn't go to congress and say hey we need more troops nor did his recycled Ford era Sec of Def do such either. The decline started under Poppy continues today and not one POTUS has protested. That is what is causing major problems. Today's troops are seeing more deployments for longer times than those in WW2. They served four years the duration. Some guys today are doing eight on first sign up.

BTW I was an NCO at E-4. I was such about a third of my four year enlistment. On second enlistment nearly all were married usually struggling money wise E-5's.

As for the violence again much of it isn't due to marriage it's due to over deployments too close together. You can;'t keep sending men into combat a year, bring them home six months to a year, send them back, and repeat several this more times in 6-8 years without bad things happening behavior wise. It's not the marriage doing it it's the deployment policies.

If a person enlist today at 18 Uncle Sam now owns them till 26. Many times they will have to serve the 8 active or get home after 4-6 years, get married and at 7 years 6 months get called back up. When I enlisted in 76 I did four years and came home. Two years later my DC came in the mail. It was all volunteer back then. Actually I came home, married, and ended up in a job where I was gone for two weeks sometimes three and home for two days. The marriage was fine.

Do you think think it's fine to have our troops being paid poverty level pay? I don't. I don't think it right to demand they put their family plans on hold especially for 6-8 years either. Actually I think first enlistments should be limited to four years active duty and only a formal declaration of war be reason to call up a man in his remaining two years inactive. I would make the first enlistment obligation limited to six years under any circumstances with seperation from active at four. The only exception to a four year limit I can see justifiable is in such programs as the Navy Nuclear Propulsion where 18 months of schooling is required before reporting to first duty. That should be limited to six total and all active duty.

Our missions can't get smaller do the math. We are well under 300 ships thanks to Poppy, Clinton, Junior and Obama as well as congress. The ships are showing it too as they are over deployed and maintenance missed. Over half the Reagan military levels and programs are gone and have not been replaced. That is why our troops are being ran ragged today. The adults never showed up with the help. One Smirking Chimp lands on a carrier with a banner Mission Accomplished and the blind sheep were in awe of his support for the troops? Pay no attention to that over deployed into combat PFC or SGT with PTSD though or his pending court martial for assaulting poor Omar in Baghdad.

Reagan used the recession to fill the ranks of the military. In less than two years it went from being undermanned and offering $15-$18K retention bonuses for a second hitch to all billets filled. I know because after I married I tried to go back in. I was in a critical rating when I got out and turned down such a bonus.

64 posted on 02/18/2011 12:45:03 AM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

“Cut somebody else’s pet project!” is the battle cry heard everywhere. Things aren’t THAT bad, I guess.

65 posted on 02/18/2011 12:32:47 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson