Sunday, March 24, 2013

Amash: Increase Spending on Care for Veterans and Take It from Social Security Payments

It is important to keep in mind that we now have a volunteer army in the United States. Thus, no one is forced into the military. Some may have been ill informed before joining, some may have been tricked and others may have simply made bad career moves, but no one has been forced into becoming a soldier.

And it is questionable as to what "service" these soldiers have performed. As Laurence Vance writes:
U.S. troops fighting in foreign wars are doing everything but defending our freedoms. The more they defend our freedoms – by bombing, invading, and occupying other countries – the more enemies of the United States they create and the more our real freedoms are taken away in the name of "fighting terrorism" and "national security." Since I never "served," don’t take my word for it; listen (here and here) to Army veteran and now president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, Jacob Hornberger, who has been arguing this very point for years.
On the other end of the spectrum, every wage earner in this country is forced to pay into the Social Security system, with government regularly changing the rules as to how much of the money will be repaid and when.

Thus, it is disturbing to see so-called libertarian, Congressman Justin Amash, lump veteran care and social security benefits together and call for a reduction in Social Security payments (That is reduce payments to those who were forced into a system), so that speedier service is provided to veterans.

At a townhall, according to Michigan:
A couple of people asked Amash what he and Congress will do to help veterans and fix problems with wait times for services. Amash said that veteran care was being victimized by big spending programs like the military, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.
Amash is doing nothing here but glorifying the killers for the state and failing to recognize the coercive nature of Social Security.

If less care was given to veterans (or no care), then maybe word would get out that joining the military was not such a great career move. At the same time, Social Security funds should be reimbursed to the people it was taken from, by liquidating government assets. Thus, from a libertarian perspective, Amash has things backwards. He is protecting the state at the expense of its subjects.

(ht John Duncan)


  1. Soooo, let me see if I've got this right. The plan is to take money away from old veterans and give it to new veterans. Then maybe... the new veterans support the old veterans? Sounds like a workable plan to me.

    And people say politicians have their heads up their asses. It's just not true, I tell you. They have no idea where their asses even are, or maybe they do because they're all ass. I'm stumped!

  2. I find it highly offensive that you, Robert, refer to military personnel and veterans as "killers for the state." You have no idea what you're talking about, and just because you've referenced one veteran who happens to hold views similar to yours--it means nothing. You can disagree with the wars and conflicts, but you are a fool if you blame that on those in the service and they, as a whole, do not deserve to be disrespected or ridiculed by people like you. You will never understand anything about the military because you've never been in it. Same goes with Laurence Vance. You, Lew, Laurence, all sit there and yell at others to "revolt," but I guarantee that if it ever hit the fan all three of you would be hiding under blankets in your mom's basement while those "killers of the state" actually fought back. Most of those men and women you're ridiculing have more character and principle than the likes of you will ever have.

    I am a veteran, and I oppose all the overseas wars and conflicts, and I disagree with Amash here, but you display your ignorance when you put this on those serving. Yes, blame the politicians, absolutely, and continue to speak out against unjust war, but you really cross the line when you spit in the faces of the soldiers.

  3. Alex, I have to laugh at your comment. There is just so much wrong with it.

    First, how are soldiers not killers for the state? You really have to explain this. Obviously not every member of the military directly commits acts of violence, but they are part of an institution based upon carrying out such acts, and their belonging to said institution - again, whether or not they actually carried out violent activities - allows it to function and to kill large numbers of people.

    Second, you say that Mr. Wenzel will never understand anything about the military because he never joined. Let's apply that line of reasoning elsewhere and see if it sounds like a reasonable claim or if it sounds ridiculous: 1) You will never understand anything about the government, because you never joined, 2) you will never understand anything about GM (including why it failed and "had" to be bailed out) because you were never under its employ, 3) you will never understand anything about the United Nations because you were never a part of it. Hmm, if these statements are true, then nobody can criticize government that hasn't been part of it, economists who studied GM and it's failing are in no position to do so unless they worked there, and nobody can criticize the UN unless they were a part of that ridiculous organization. All of those implications are pretty ridiculous, huh? So is your statement. Maybe Mr. Wenzel doesn't know what it is like to be a soldier, but he can still know plenty about the military.

    Third, unless I have missed it, I highly doubt Mr. Rockwell, Mr. Wenzel, etc., are actively encouraging violent revolution. If you want to go shooting at the government, knock yourself out, but you'll be dead pretty quick; the state is really good at committing acts of violence.

    Lastly, you conclude your remarks by stating that you oppose all the overseas wars and conflicts, yet you are a veteran. Did you join voluntarily? If so, you've lost me again. Maybe you were awoken to the destructive nature of war - something some of us didn't need to go overseas to discover - and have changed your position on US foreign policy since you joined. I hope so. The alternative would be that you're one of the many odd "libertarians" I meet who plan on joining, or did so (while considering themselves libertarian), despite it's mission, means, and history. If you are older and were conscripted (which I highly doubt since you'd have to be over 60 years old, and, just an educated guess based on the older folks I know and their ability to use the internet, but I doubt you're that old), then I apologize that the state saw it fit to use you as cannon fodder whether or not you were willing to consent, but I would suggest taking a good critical/analytical look at the military and what it does. Perhaps you'd stop sympathizing with people who continue to remain - voluntarily, as Mr. Wenzel reminds us - in the employ of a mass killing operation.

    1. Excellent response, RLR, but I resemble that remark about geezers and the internet. (65).

  4. Yeah, ditto, Capn (older 'n you) ;-)