The Forgotten Warriors

[Kulindahr]

Everyone talks about the troops coming home.

The media assiduously, sometimes seemingly eagerly, report on how many were wounded, how many died, often putting names and faces to the statistics. We read about how badly things are going, or how well things are going; we hear about this battle or attack, or that success or achievement. Congress fights over spending for the war, even whether we ought to spend. Opinions abound, facts abound -- too often selected to reinforce opinions -- and to an extent apathy abounds; we've just heard too much.

Yet in one area everyone agrees: we all "support our troops", we all praise their sacrifice and bravery, we all insist on giving them the best, we all admire their determination. Every one who's wounded is called a "hero", and our heroes get their welcomes home.

But "home" is itself a topic of contention. Some say "Bring them home now!", some caution we must bring them home, but only as fast as will not make things worse; others say we will bring them home when we have "stayed the course". Yet we all agree they have to come home.

In all this, it has to be asked just what our commitment is to our warriors coming "home", for the fact is that last year some 196,000 veterans slept on the streets, or in shelters, or in "transition houses", according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness. One has to ask, if we want our warriors to come home, shouldn't we be making sure, somehow, that they have homes to come to?
Consider the sheer size of that figure: there are, it seems, more homeless veterans in the United States than there have been personnel in Iraq at the peak -- about 60% more! Is this how we "support our troops"? Is this how we treat our "heroes"? Is this how we show our admiration of those we praise and admire? In spite of accusations on both sides of the issues, it's doubtful that anyone truly "hates America" -- but given this reality, how can anyone defend against the charge?

Recently an anonymous donor gave $100 million to 46 charities in Erie, Pennsylvania. Plainly, there is at least one person of substantial wealth with a heart to help people. It was Andrew Carnegie, once the world's richest man, who held that it is the responsibility of those with great wealth to use it for the benefit of their fellows, to seek out needs and meet them. Is it too much to ask of the nation's billionaires to follow his 'gospel'? The United States has the richest two men in the world, and more billionaires than any other country; is it too much to expect that even half of them could together do something about our homeless veterans? Those top two could give a billion each and barely notice its absence!
Why the rich? Because they have the most interest in doing so: if this veterans fought for their country, they fought proportionately more for the preservation of the property of the wealthy. Early in American history, harbor fortifications were built not by any government, but by the businessmen who depended on the harbor; cannon for city militias were obtained in the same way -- all because the wealthy knew that they had more to lose.
And if they have more to lose, they ought to give more for reward: at the very least, they ought to provide decent housing for our warriors.

To a great extent, Americans tend to dislike war; most of the wars we have veterans from are forgotten wars.
But let's not allow the veterans to be forgotten warriors.

 

[sparky95]

Question- Do the extremely wealthy actually have anything to lose by not giving money to veterans housing, etc? Do they have anything to gain by privately funding such things? For the people who can afford such massive capital outlays, perhaps their wealth is effectively transnational and really not particulary tied to the fate of the U.S anymore than any other state?

 

[scottish1]

On 11/11 I posted a thread on the 'Hot Topics' board "Assistance given to injured U.S.Military"as a result of a news item I had seen on T.V. in Australia. In short it was showing people opening up their homes for a free weekend to injured soldiers/marines and their family,it also stated that this type of project had spread throughout the U.S.A. I thought it reflected well on the public and it was a good feel news item out of the U.S. for a change and deserved a mention from someone not in the U.S. for credit where credit is due. Judging by the pesponse from members of the board only 32people looked at it and none replied. I am not saying that this board is a true sounding of how people feel in the U.S., but looking at this post and Chance 1 'The forgotten war' it looks like the people are media influenced in matters of war etc. Unless it is watching people die with all the emotional emphasis placed on it by the media it does not rate. I have already said that the Iraq war does not appear nightly on T.V. and sad to say anything else attached to that war will not rate highly with the media therefore no ratings,no newspaper sales increases,no profit.

 

[iman]

Kuli, are you suggesting: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli, are you suggesting: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?

There's certainly a surface parallel.

But it ends at the surface. I'm suggesting that (1) government action isn't the way to go, (2) the super-wealthy ought to show a little gratitude, and (3) since probably every billionaire in America claims to support the troops, they ought to put their money where their mouths are... especially since they have so much money to put.

I'm also suggesting that Carnegie was right, as were some of the early wealthy folks in our Republic, that the wealthy have a responsibility to do good with that wealth. Both John Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan voiced similar sentiments.

And I've always wondered what the point is to being wealthy if you can't have fun by going around spending it on people who need it? Of course, since it's your money, it's up to you to decide what a "need" is -- Carnegie chose libraries, for example, and Morgan decided that his heirs didn't need any of his wealth ("Let them earn their own!", I believe he said).

If I were as wealthy as Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, I'd happily write a check for a billion to establish a foundation to make sure that our vets had, at the very least, housing of some sort, even if like college dormitories.

 

[iman]

They should and they oughta just does not get it. Both Buffet and Gates have said that they do not pay enough taxes and were opposed to the Bush tax cuts for the wealth. Just raise the taxes on the wealthy so they can pay their fair share and we can pay for veteran care.

 

[LaloGS]

They should and they oughta just does not get it. Both Buffet and Gates have said that they do not pay enough taxes and were opposed to the Bush tax cuts for the wealth. Just raise the taxes on the wealthy so they can pay their fair share and we can pay for veteran care.

imam, do you think $196 billion every 6 months and 1.6 trillion over the course of the wars wouldn't be better spent at home to fix the failing infrastructure and social problems in the US? Repuglican ideology is flawed and not taxing the rich is one of the basic flaws of Neocon ideology. War spending is no better than making a big pile of cash, and setting it on fire. It produces nothing but smoke in the end.

 

[LaloGS]

Thanks for this post Kulindahr. I agree with you 100%.

I call these vast multibillion dollar hoards the black holes of the US economy. They are nothing more than ego pissing contests, about who can amass the most.

Congress ought to pass laws that taxes anything over $10 million per year, back into the government coffers for social and infrastructure upkeep. After all, if a family of 4 can't live on $10 million a year, they ought to be put out of their misery.

 

[Kulindahr]

They should and they oughta just does not get it. Both Buffet and Gates have said that they do not pay enough taxes and were opposed to the Bush tax cuts for the wealth. Just raise the taxes on the wealthy so they can pay their fair share and we can pay for veteran care.

Then they are utter hypocrites.
They think they should have been taxed more? Well, then, why aren't they out there spending multi-millions of dollars on things they think their taxes should have gone for? Are they such little children they can't manage to do it without Nanny Washington leading them by the hand?

Thanks for this post Kulindahr. I agree with you 100%.

I call these vast multibillion dollar hoards the black holes of the US economy. They are nothing more than ego pissing contests, about who can amass the most.

Congress ought to pass laws that taxes anything over $10 million per year, back into the government coffers for social and infrastructure upkeep. After all, if a family of 4 can't live on $10 million a year, they ought to be put out of their misery.

First, such a tax would be sheer robbery; second, the wealthy would just shift the wealth around to avoid it (it's been done before).
I'm saying these wealthy people ought to be doing it themselves, as wealthy people before them have said is their duty, a duty that comes with wealth.

General Alfie loves to chant "Get your crack to Iraq!" at those who support that military adventure. Though that's a bit simplistic, I'm saying in the same spirit that people who say, "We support our troops!" ought to be getting out their checkbooks and doing so.
I give to veterans groups every year. I'm willing to pledge 5% of my net worth for veterans this Christmas -- if everyone in this country did the same, the money that would pour into a foundation for vets would guarantee no vet would ever have to be homeless again.
If we assign it to the government, our warriors essentially stay forgotten, because it's just a tax and most people don't have the slightest clue where their taxes go. I'm arguing that everyone who claims to support the troops ought to show that they aren't forgetting by doing something personally, i.e. showing a little charity. If you can't put your checkbook (or labor) "where your heart is", I thoroughly doubt you even have a heart.

 

[iman]

Warren Buffet has donated $30 Billion to the Bill Gates foundation. I think these two guys are a little ahead of you.

 

[Kulindahr]

Warren Buffet has donated $30 Billion to the Bill Gates foundation. I think these two guys are a little ahead of you.

So we just need to write letters and get them interested in our vets?

 

[Kulindahr]

The accumulated wealth of America is about $150 trillion dollars. Five percent is $7.5 trillion. That should take care of EBBYBODY!

Okay, Alfie, lets' get started -- you can be the first director of "Housing For All!"

Though if we split it among 'ebbybody', it's roughly $40,000 per housing unit... split it among all those under the poverty line, and it's plenty!