Correction:
Any government should not create social entitlements or retirements for people who don't do a damn thing.

True.

No different than most other employers.  When they need to compete for skilled/capable applicants, and they can't pay the highest wages, they include benefits and perks as part of the compensation package.  Medical, holidays/paid time off, uniform allowances, education/tuition assistance, and, YES, corporate discounts on many things including rental cars, air fares, hotels and a variety of services and products to attract your business.

That's not "socialism".  It's called "the reality of a competitive free market".

"No.  My experience and firsthand knowledge, unlike some others who can only make assumptions based on no direct experience."

Experience in the military does not make you an expert who should get special treatment.   



"No one forces you to be a whiny little bitch who hates America, either.  Yet, here you are."

You hate Hawaiians and their desire for de-occupation and government restoration.   



"The realities, as you put it, is that some who served or have close relatives who served understand the sacrifices of their choices and the extreme importance of the jobs we do/have done.  Maybe the discounts are just their way of showing respect, which I really don't think you will ever grasp."

Your opinion.   



"You sound jealous that the US military was able to subdue the people of Hawaii without any resistance.  I guess  the Hawaiians saw protecting their precious nation as a job -- just like any other job such as picking pineapples."

I am glad you made the statement above for all 2a supporting Hawaiians to see!   

"No.  My experience and firsthand knowledge, unlike some others who can only make assumptions based on no direct experience."

Experience in the military does not make you an expert who should get special treatment.   



"No one forces you to be a whiny little bitch who hates America, either.  Yet, here you are."

You hate Hawaiians and their desire for de-occupation and government restoration.   



"The realities, as you put it, is that some who served or have close relatives who served understand the sacrifices of their choices and the extreme importance of the jobs we do/have done.  Maybe the discounts are just their way of showing respect, which I really don't think you will ever grasp."

Your opinion.   



"You sound jealous that the US military was able to subdue the people of Hawaii without any resistance.  I guess  the Hawaiians saw protecting their precious nation as a job -- just like any other job such as picking pineapples."

I am glad you made the statement above for all 2a supporting Hawaiians to see!   

Your definition of "Special Treatment" is lacking in relevance and accuracy.

 

Funny.  You think everyone who claims to be Hawaiian thinks like you.

That's about as narrow-minded as anyone can get.

"That's not the point in any way, shape or form.  The government provides care and treatment, as well as financial benefits, because they understand the sacrifices we make."

You make it sound like the US government really cares for its people.  What a crock of manure!!!!

Right, this same government that is coming for your guns and looking for ways to disqualify veterans from owning firearms?  That government?

Are you for real?



"Example:  If you can't buy a home because you never stay in the same place long enough to build equity, that's a burden compared to a civilian who works for a union company for a couple of decades with job security, a steady increase in pay and benefits, and the stability to afford a mortgage long enough to pay it off or sell during an up market.  The VA loan benefit is not a handout, anyway.  It simply guarantees a portion of the loan so the buyer doesn't have to come up with as much down payment, or pay that ridiculous insurance because they financed more than 80%.  It's a "marker" in case you default on the loan so the lender can break even after the property is sold."

What about the overwhelming millions of Americans who are not part of a union, who works for 20+ years?  Why can't they get the same break genius?  Are they lesser Americans than those whose served in the military?



"This is not about the government.  It's about the military, and how people like him take them for granted and doesn't respect their choices to serve their country.

Don't reframe the argument.

This is about socialism and how it is applied in the US.  You can give examples with commentary to sway readers away from that point, but the bottom line is that the special treatment given to veterans of the military is what the US government deems a societal goal.

Vocal opponents of socialism on this forum speak against it, but fail to see how many Americans and veterans are beneficiaries to such social programs and initiatives.

"Your definition of "Special Treatment" is lacking in relevance and accuracy."

Your opinion.



"Funny.  You think everyone who claims to be Hawaiian thinks like you."

You must be delusional if you think Hawaiians would be a fan of you or similar people whose beliefs are like yours.

Equating social programs and socialism?!?!

🤦🏻‍♂️

Can’t reason with that... insanity...

Flawed logic at its best

"No different than most other employers.  When they need to compete for skilled/capable applicants, and they can't pay the highest wages, they include benefits and perks as part of the compensation package.  Medical, holidays/paid time off, uniform allowances, education/tuition assistance, and, YES, corporate discounts on many things including rental cars, air fares, hotels and a variety of services and products to attract your business."

All those benefits and perks still cost someone money.  I wonder who has to pay all that?



That's not "socialism".  It's called "the reality of a competitive free market."

Interesting.

Did you come up with that definition yourself?

Equating social programs and socialism?!?!

🤦🏻‍♂️

Can’t reason with that... insanity...

If you are clear on your definitions, tell me how social programs are not applications of socialism?

The military is a DUTY enumerated in the US Constitution assigned to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Funny, I don't see "Socialism", "Welfare" nor even "Charity" described in the Constitution as a role or duty of the federal government.

Maybe because they AREN'T?

If you are clear on your definitions, tell me how social programs are not applications of socialism?

Because not all social programs are based on need (i.e. "means test").  Some are based on race, gender, and so on.

Also, Socialism is a policy of taking or heavily controlling the means of production and using that to distribute the output as the government dictates.  In other words, lack of choices.

Our welfare system is FULL of choices, including the one that involves only using the system until you can take care of yourself again.  Socialism wants you dependent on the government.

Flawed logic at its best

"No different than most other employers.  When they need to compete for skilled/capable applicants, and they can't pay the highest wages, they include benefits and perks as part of the compensation package.  Medical, holidays/paid time off, uniform allowances, education/tuition assistance, and, YES, corporate discounts on many things including rental cars, air fares, hotels and a variety of services and products to attract your business."

All those benefits and perks still cost someone money.  I wonder who has to pay all that?



That's not "socialism".  It's called "the reality of a competitive free market."

Interesting.

Did you come up with that definition yourself?

Look who's asking?   

Your entire opinion on this issue is 100% made-up in your head.   

This is about taxes, not military discounts.  Once again, you've done it!

Might as well.  Not like anyone is keeping these threads  on topic or anything .....

The military is a DUTY enumerated in the US Constitution assigned to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Funny, I don't see "Socialism", "Welfare" nor even "Charity" described in the Constitution as a role or duty of the federal government.

Maybe because they AREN'T?

QUESTION: Where in the US Constitution does it say veterans in the armed forces get special privileges? 
ANSWER: No where.  In fact, it is the 3rd Amendment that takes away the practiced convention of the time where governments allowed the seizing of private property to house its soldiers.

Moreover, if President Washington wanted to reward the continental army for contributing to the birth of the US, other than specifically spelled-out pensions, he would have enacted policies mandating revolutionary war veterans free land and provisions in their later years.

Because not all social programs are based on need (i.e. "means test").  Some are based on race, gender, and so on.

Also, Socialism is a policy of taking or heavily controlling the means of production and using that to distribute the output as the government dictates.  In other words, lack of choices.

Our welfare system is FULL of choices, including the one that involves only using the system until you can take care of yourself again.  Socialism wants you dependent on the government.

Your examples are overly simplistic and cleverly worded to avoid the basic tenants of socialism, which is an ideology that focuses its efforts in adopting policies that serve societal interests.  When you speak of the US welfare system, don't you realize that is one of the many applications of socialism?

Furthermore, your use of the stereotypical antisocialism rhetoric that "Socialism wants you dependent on the government" is indeed one of its many possible side effects.  However, the same can be said of capitalism, where "it will eventually create a society where there will be a very small amount of rich and gigantic amount of poor."

QUESTION: Where in the US Constitution does it say veterans in the armed forces get special privileges? 
ANSWER: No where.  In fact, it is the 3rd Amendment that takes away the practiced convention of the time where governments allowed the seizing of private property to house its soldiers.

Moreover, if President Washington wanted to reward the continental army for contributing to the birth of the US, other than specifically spelled-out pensions, he would have enacted policies mandating revolutionary war veterans free land and provisions in their later years.

The revolutionary war soldiers were promised pensions and bounties in land and/or monies, so you are wrong.  But back then, as now, the fighting factions of government slowed and hampered payment of such benefits. 

The revolutionary war soldiers were promised pensions and bounties in land and/or monies, so you are wrong.  But back then, as now, the fighting factions of government slowed and hampered payment of such benefits.

Where was this recorded?

I never heard of this and would love to read about it.

If there were factions in government that hampered such benefits, the validity of such benefits could have been one source of contention.

Please share the source so I can learn.

Where was this recorded?

I never heard of this and would love to read about it.

If there were factions in government that hampered such benefits, the validity of such benefits could have been one source of contention.

Please share the source so I can learn.

Are you not gonna computer connected to the internet?

Then as now, Democrats (pre Democrats), didn't want black people free and peons owning land.  So yeah. There was some contention.

Your examples are overly simplistic and cleverly worded to avoid the basic tenants of socialism, which is an ideology that focuses its efforts in adopting policies that serve societal interests. When you speak of the US welfare system, don't you realize that is one of the many applications of socialism?

Furthermore, your use of the stereotypical antisocialism rhetoric that "Socialism wants you dependent on the government" is indeed one of its many possible side effects.  However, the same can be said of capitalism, where "it will eventually create a society where there will be a very small amount of rich and gigantic amount of poor."

Either you made that up, or your teachers were Leftist Commie idiots.

By definition, Socialism cannot coexist with a society founded on individual liberty and private property rights.

Don't take my word for it.  Read the Democratic Socialists' own official website:

Q:  Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism?

A:  In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations,
but we can bring them under greater democratic control.

In more direct words, IN THE LONG TERM, their goal is to eliminate private corporations. Imagine abandoning the best means for economic prosperity, which many other countries like Denmark and Singapore adopted and proved works, in favor of a pipe dream that has failed every single solitary time it's been tried -- usually after a good portion of the population has been murdered and imprisoned in that process.

There's no sugar coating it.  The same people who elected people like Mazie and Schotz will be voting their (and our) rights away.  "These people" will not be voting to decide on what and how businesses will be run.  They are not  qualified to do anything more than be told what to do or to steal what others have produced.  That  promise of democratically run businesses is merely a "hook" to get a majority to support the party leaders who, when in power, will make all the decisions.

Don't be so naive -- or ignorant -- and dangerous.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/#govt

Are you not gonna computer connected to the internet?

Then as now, Democrats (pre Democrats), didn't want black people free and peons owning land.  So yeah. There was some contention.

Thank you for your input; as I stand corrected.   

However, as you pointed out, this policy of handing out bounty lands as a means of rewarding revolutionary soldiers for their service and sacrifice is misleading:

1.  Since the founding fathers did not necessarily want the illiterate or uneducated to have the power to vote, it would not be surprising they must have had reservations of giving out land to those very people who did serve in the continental army, which would have given them voting rights.

2.  Also, it should be noted the land granting policy the US government had was another way to escape paying revolutionary war veterans their back wages and pensions, since funds were scare due to the costs involved fighting the revolutionary war with Great Britain.

3.  Upon looking into to this policy much deeper, it has been commented that since the lands offered were often located far from the coast, very few veterans claimed and retained title to those lands.  Most would sell their deeds as they did not have the capital nor the knowhow to develop those lands for themselves.

I still am an admirer of the founding fathers, but the granting of land to revolutionary war veterans was not totally honest nor socialistic in nature.  It was more akin as a stopgap measure to compensate them due to lack of funds in the nation's treasury and crafted to minimize the possibility of them participating in the voting/election process.

QUESTION: Where in the US Constitution does it say veterans in the armed forces get special privileges? 

Right next to where it says the government has a right to use our taxes for charity.