One of the greatest bands ever! :rock:

Canada, specially Quebec, could be the best choice for me, as my French is by far better than my English; anyway, the search for a different job is more a temptation than a real needing for me (a professional with little love for his current affairs).

Well, that (and some other political/social comments) has little to do with the problems of Sailor Steve; as it seems, what I call "the curse of general topics" strikes again.

I hope that my older twin now is enabled to play SHIII again.

Was very sad to hear about your plight steve. I hope you life is starting to get better for you mate:up: :yep: Just hang in there it is good to see you have not lost you sence of humour. I myself am currently serving in the forces of the UK, i just hope that i manage to ovoid ending up in the same situation.
Well steve me and my family are thinking of you mate, good luck:up:

As a retiree you'll find no argument from me, however It's never going to happen and I believe it's won't fit into the constitution.

Why do you think it unconstitutional? These are men and women who have served their nation with honor.

I know JFK stated the whole "ask not what your country can do for you" blah blah blah speach, but still. I think a little bit a pocket change is not too much to ask for the vets of America. I'm sick of seeing them sleeping on the roads in the cold and I'm sick of their not being guranteed "stable" jobs for them.

I think it is possible to happen. The only thing that would make it difficult would be the whole retro active deal. OF course vets from years before are going to ask where their money is. But where is their money? Surely if Mr. Bush can write off huge checks for other things he could write some for the vets of America. Heck, he'd even be paying himself. I'm surprised he hasn't thought of this! :hmm:

Also, if the government is paying you and all vets who served over 20 a retirement check and that's not considered to be unconstitutional, why can't they pay everyone that served at least 1 HONORABLE tour some money. Of course the more years you did or do the more money you get. i jsut think $2000 a month is chump change for today's world considering you can hardly live on just that much anymore. I think it's the least the government should do. Of course it should max cap at a certain amount (there was a few that served over 40 years that I've met :o ), but of course the money should reflect on how much HONORABLE time was served, and did it include any combat action.

If you meet either of those two requirements it should reflect on how much money you get. Start at $2000 a month for a lifetime if 8 years or more were served. 8 years is the minimum enlistment time. If you do 4 active duty years then you still have to do 4 inactive duty years. The money should not be paid out to the service member until the completion of the 8th year.

This would keep people from just joinging for the money and being able to get out right away. They would still have to fill their contract and if they chose to get out after 4 years they won't see a dime for another 4 years of inactive duty time. This way people will be more inclined to serve at least 8 active duty years knowing that they want to have some sort of income coming in once they do decide to get out.


How does that sound?


This at least keeps vets from ever living in poverty and living without. It also goes to strengthen people's interest in joining the military right out of high school and doing a job for at least 8 years in the military. This would also gurantee that vets from yesterday as well as vets in the future are guranteed a decent living for the rest of theirs and their families lives. I think we owe this to the vets of America.

That's kind of my point. The fact that not much has been done to help can't be blamed (at least personally) on any one man. Actually, there are a lot of options available. I'm eligible for many programs that would support me and pay me money. The only problem is I would have to sign a paper saying I'm no longer in control of my own life. If I agree to their terms they would then have the authority (I won't say 'right') to lock me away if one of them decided I was just a little 'off'. Every time my diabetes nurse says she wants me to see a therapist I draw the line and say "no".

The problem I have is simple: as soon as you do that 95% of the population is going to sign up for four years and then do nothing but collect that money for the rest of their lives. The other 5% are going to be expected to cough up all the money, and there isn't that kind of money for just 5% of the people to cough up, even if they're all as rich as Bill Gates. The money would have to come from somewhere.

Same goes for $1,000,000 for families of deceased veterans-not enough money.

Same with free gas. The government, not the oil companies, would have to pay for it, and governments by nature don't generate revenues.

I disagree. The government has a money print press. True, there is no money in Ft. Knox. The money is in the banks that truely run the country and that's where all the money is. Obviously there is plenty of money in this country considering the average CEO as of the year 2004 was making 4000% more than their average worker. That number was only 42% in the year 2000. So in just 4 years CEO's are hogging the company income and paying the little guys absolutley nothing for the work that is performed.


I also disagree that anyone would get out considering they could make a WHOLE lot more by just staying in another term. And when they get to the end of THAT term they will want to go ANOTHER term for even more money. True, I few will get out and be happy with $2000 a month for the rest of their lives. But $2000 ain't crap nowadays and you can hardly live on that if even live at all!

so what are you suggesting, that the government just print off money as it pleases?

It does anyways for a lot of other worthless ideas and programs! Why not print some more! :yep:

because thats considered communism

we, the US, are a democracy (or a republic in some eyes).
that goes against everything a democracy/republic is.

Great idea, and when that 2000 bucks isn't worth enough to even pay for a loaf of bread what will be Subman Greenspans solution then?

tax all republicans.:lol:

Ok, and forcing America's to spend its money on other programs is not considered to be a communistic act?

BTW...

We are talking about the veterans of US wars here, so I think spending money on them is far from being a communistic act considering so many have given so much to the American people. What's it worth to you?

and I like how you think that the "no child left behind" act, tax cuts, and the Department of Homeland Security were just "a waste of money":nope: