The Less than One Percenters

Flopping Aces ^ | 01-26-15 | Wordsmith

[Starman417]

For a country that's been engaged in two major theaters of war for around the last 13 years, much of the service and sacrifice has been made by the true 1%'ers.

A 2013 Pew Research article reports that only a 5th of the Congress at the time had any military experience, themselves.

Not all that long ago, military service was practically a requirement for serving in Congress. The high point in recent decades was the 95th Congress (1977-78) when, following an influx of Vietnam-era veterans, a combined 77% of the House and Senate had served in the armed forces. But as World War II veterans have retired and relatively few Americans enlist in the all-volunteer armed forces, veterans account for a smaller and smaller share of Congress.

Veterans-and-Congress_1That reflects the wider trend in U.S. society. According to Census figures, veterans currently make up about 7% of the overall population, down from 13.7% in 1970 — when the Vietnam War was raging and the draft was still in place. As a 2011 Pew Research Center report noted, the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been fought by a historically small U.S. military; this has contributed to a distance between the military and civilian society. While Americans overwhelmingly say they feel proud of those who’ve served and appreciate their sacrifices, 71% say most Americans know little or nothing about the problems faced by military personnel; about as many (74%) oppose reinstating a draft.

If ordinary American citizens who benefit from the service and sacrifice of soldiers and the families who directly support them don't have personal blood and treasure at stake themselves, it creates for a detached citizenry.

I think one of the most important aspects of Eastwood's American Sniper is its portrayal of the jarring difference between being "over there" and being back here at home where most Americans go about their daily business, care-free and sheltered from the harsh conditions and brutal realities faced by our military men and women serving in theater. Our care-free American lives and livelihood is made possible only because of the few willing to enlist and militarily serve.

This article is spot-on:

Like nearly everything else—a ball game, a rock concert, a political debate—anyone who buys a ticket or takes the time to watch instantly becomes a critic. And today, with twitter and texting and all the other tools we have literally at our fingertips, a debate quickly turns into a cyber-space brawl.

People on the left go back and forth with those on the right about the movie’s merits. Is it pro-war? Is it anti-war? And while a platoon of professional essayists, film aficionados and all around ‘I’m smarter-than-you’ folks attack one another’s opinions, there seem to be a couple items that have been forgotten along the side of the long road we’ve traveled for 15 years—15 years!—in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The most obvious is the lack of attention paid to the fact that only about one percent of our population has borne the weight of war. Then there are the families left behind while those fighting are deployed multiple times to both theaters—Iraq and Afghanistan—breaking the military and too often breaking those who sit state-side, worrying, waiting, while 99% of everyone around them dances through the day without any real prospect of danger or death knocking on their door.

Mike Barnicle concludes:

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"Our care-free American lives"

It's not that black and white. There are some in the military who spend their entire careers behind a desk or at a safe supply depot, while millions of civilians have to deal with health issues, untimely deaths of loved ones, long spans of unemployment, etc.

Some heroes are willing to take bullets for us. Other heroes are ones capable of sitting through endless meetings making sure that rules are respected, money is spent wisely, and ultimately worthless and intractable projects are not entered into lightly.

[SkyPilot]

Next month, a commission will military benefits and retirement "reform." "Reform" is a buzz word meaning slashes to military families pay, housing, and medical insurance.

The Takers are taking even more. ObamaCare subsidies, Food Stamps, and 70+ welfare programs will eat up Billions. Illegal Invaders are costing this nation Billions as well.

But, we abandon those who served this nation.

[MSF BU]

It is that black & white. Young men are free to step up an serve or leave it to somebody else. Paul Ryan, sitting on his ass in a committee, is not the same as Duncan Hunter leading a platoon of Marines. As regards the ‘supply depot’ canard, every service member has the potential for deployment to remote posts that are dangerous. The fact that some never make it there doesn’t diminish the fact that they put themselves on the line.

[Alberta's Child]

I read the full article and I think the author makes a number of good points, I'm not sure what exactly the overall point of the article was.

One thing really stood out to me:

Not all that long ago, military service was practically a requirement for serving in Congress. The high point in recent decades was the 95th Congress (1977-78) when, following an influx of Vietnam-era veterans, a combined 77% of the House and Senate had served in the armed forces.

Now look at that 77% figure in the context of the following:

According to Census figures, veterans currently make up about 7% of the overall population, down from 13.7% in 1970 — when the Vietnam War was raging and the draft was still in place.

This seems to imply that military veterans were very heavily over-represented in Congress during much of the post-WW2 period -- and maybe even beyond that. And in light of the fact that the U.S. military has probably been mishandled and misused (perhaps to put it gently) for much of that period, I wonder what exactly this says about this country's leadership.

[Glad2bnuts]

I have a great “reform” that will save the government money. Replace the housing allowance with a pay raise. Servicemen can help drive down the cost of rentals for themselves and civilians living near bases. As it is rent for a decent house in my area of say a 3 bed 1 bath is $1,200 a month. Houses that are worth $80=$100K. A house that would sell for $250K rents for $1,800 - $2,000 per month. The property managers get whatever they want because the military people pay so little after the allowance. 1 bed rambler without garage is about as low as you can go, $800 a month. 2 bedroom duplex...old navy housing, concrete floors with tile, single heater...from WW 2....$950. It makes me sad because my children really struggle to make ends meet. Over 50% of income goes just for housing.

When I made the grand salary of $2.00 an hour, my rent was just over a weeks pay. When I finally got a job through the carpenters union, 1 weeks pay paid two months rent.

Simply put, the government has now distorted so many different areas of life for “We the People”, that many are near the point of having to take the handouts, or starve. Just ask those living on SS. Ask a 30 year old daughter with two little ones, how hard it is to live. They need the medical help, the food stamps and on and on and on. Having been bled dry for 60 years, it is hard to argue whether or not they are “owed” it.

For those that would say “you shouldn’t have kids if you can’t afford them”. What would you have people do? Only the well to do, or those financially set have children? Where would we get sane people from?

Good luck asking the sons and daughters of the higher earners to die for their country.

OK, rant off.....