http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070718/ts_csm/afemalevets_1

The VA has no permanent housing program for veterans; it only funds "temporary transitional" housing programs around the country. The Department of Housing and Urban Development provides housing vouchers to the homeless that are administered by local authorities. The problem, experts say, is there are not enough affordable housing vouchers for all who need them.
But "if a woman is a veteran, it actually helps," says Beversdorf, because being both female and a veteran elevates her status for housing over other applicants.


I was reading the above article- of course, they emphasis that these are women- I guess the male homeless vet population is no big thing - but I use this article because it highlights something I have been wanting to put on here for some time.

I was counselling vets for some time a year or so ago, and one of the great stresses is the loss of income when Nat'l guard members are forced into 2 year long deployments, and they end up losing thier houses as soon as they return (the banks can't foreclose until they are off orders, then, not ten days later- they are kicking vets to the curb, big time),

A lot of these guys were financially okay before leaving, but were ruined by the US military deploying them for so long, usually months behind in mortgages and bills by the time they get back.

This does't happen so much, of course, to those that volunteer for duty- they are usually not in high paying Alaskan jobs already- a reason for thier decision to volunteer. But there are alot of families that were formerly single income families where the primary breadwinner was making in excess of 100k a year before deployment, and very financially secure, just a house and car payment- but house payments up here can run 5k a month- a bit more than an E-5s pay!

So they lose thier home, sometimes thier marriage, and eventually, some of them lose thier life to depression.

Without getting into the reasons for this war- I have to ask

1) Does America owe it's veterans essentially returning them to at least equal to the financial security they enjoyed when they left?

2) In the case of homeless vets, is it America's duty to provide housing and job training/counselling for these vets?

3) Do you think we are treating our veterans correctly considering what they sacrifice?

I am as big a supporter of our troops as you will find, but joining the military does not make you a ward of the state unless you were permanently injured and/or disabled during duty. Permanent housing for all returning veterans is simply not affordable nor should it be expected.

1) Does America owe it's veterans essentially returning them to at least equal to the financial security they enjoyed when they left?

And how exactly would we determine this? We already have laws guaranteeing that a person that is called to active duty must have his job available upon return. I fully support this. Perhaps what we need is a law suspending payments on debts during active duty service, so that late fees and such do not swamp returning soldiers.

2) In the case of homeless vets, is it America's duty to provide housing and job training/counselling for these vets?

Housing no. Training yes. I support what is already being done.

3) Do you think we are treating our veterans correctly considering what they sacrifice?

This is up to each individual to decide. Sacrifice implies loss and giving up things one would otherwise do. What we should have is full disclosure so that enlistees can make a fully informed choice.

As an aside, your linked article does not say what you apparantly think it says. That woman quit her job (sorry, "had to quit her customer service job of eight years").

It also acknowledges: "Beversdorf agrees that there is "a lot more help out there than there was after [the Vietnam War]," in which she served from 1969 to 1971."

2) In the case of homeless vets, is it America's duty to provide housing and job training/counselling for these vets?

I think we owe them both, but only on a temporary basis. Housing and/or training should be provided until the vets are capable of making it on their own - perhaps a window period of 6 months to a year, with extensions available for difficult cases.



Can't afford it? It seems we've been able to "afford" plenty for Bush's goddamned war. Your priorities are showing Amlord.

Note:


The strong language I used to describe Bush's war has been employed on this board before and it's not stopped by the pofanity filter. The word was not directed at Amlord, but Bush, and reflects my grownig frustration and resentment of Bush, Cheney and what the rest of this rotten administration stand for. Call it rage if you please!

I think your liberal bias is showing BOF.

Something you just don't understand is that people in the military DO get a chance to prepare themselves to be out on their own, or of course stay in.

Someone that has been a combat vet (and yes- I do know something about this) often times gets not only combat pay + regular pay + tax free income but also 3 hots and a cot while their overseas. THEN, when they're ready to get out there is a "period" of time if you will to help them transition out of the service.

Here's the most ridiculous quote from the article:


WHAT?
Why can't they, if they're physically and mentally capable of doing so, find a place of their own and be a productive member of society?

Let me explain how it usually works when you come back from Iraq or Afghanistan (at least in the USMC and Army units as far as I know).
1. You leave and have an estimated return date. You have ample time to find a place for your belongings, finish personal business, etc. This is true for active duty and reserve personnel.
2. While in country, you have personal time, internet access, and generally are living for free in which case you also get tax free income and combat pay. (more disposable income often times than when you were stateside)
3. Before you leave, generally you'll have a 30 day window or more to ensure your unit is ready to ship out. During this time, generally operations are slowed to a slow crawl or nearl stop. This gives tons of free time.
4. Finally, it's possible for someone generally to find a barracks or VOQ (visiting officer's quarters) when they get back. If not, they SHOULD have some $$ saved up. After all, they had a year or better to be ready.

My personal gripe about "victim" soldiers is that often times the military has given them a better lot in life than they'd have if in the civilian world. There are a ton of scrubs, not so many in the USMC, but surely even in the Corps. People that just don't get it. Somehow they passed the ASVAB, MEPS, made it through Basic and in the service they're a bump on a log. What happens when they get out? Nothing new. In any job where someone might be fired, these poor bumps on logs end up being passed over for promotions, or barely making it by, etc. 3 or 6 years later- they're on the streets and haven't used the education benefits or gotten any training. Then they were an E-4 or an E-5 and think they should get a job with comparable pay. Do those jobs exist? Nope. Of course not.

People should have to work and support themselves. If a soldier, especially these pitiful women in the article, doesn't have it together before they get back- it's their fault.

C'mon aevans176, when does my liberal bias not show?

Because of the way constant redeployment of guard and reserve units has been handled by the Bush administration, I would suggest that there will be many soldier returning, (not just those disabled) who have been uprooted. Rerooting them in whatever way necessary is what I advocate. If it takes housing assistance and training, so be it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east...uard_02-22.html

We don't seem to be concerned with what we spend on the war, so why should we be concerned about paying for the aftermath. As someone said, if you are going to dance, you have to pay the fiddler.

The Bush administration has danced; the fiddler is at the door. You will be paying for Bush's war long after I am ashes.

Maybe the question ought to be: Does ANY veteran who serves his country in time of peril, when asked, whether or not they agree or concur, deserve to be homeless when they return. The answer is no of course, if you respect and honor the soldiers who RISKED THEIR OWN LIVES. If you don't respect the men and women who RISKED THEIR OWN LIVES, then cut their benefits, boot them off of wait lists, take away their ability to be self-respectable, etc... What side are you on people? The honor and respect the veterans, or the cut-their-benefit and toss them in the street? That's something all in Washington need to ask themselves.

I don't think this is the run of the mill liberal "anti-war" debate. although it seems that the same talking points might emerge.

THE WAR IS EXPENSIVE!!!!
I know. We all know. Ok. Be done with that.

The fact is that veterans without a place to stay IS NOT a function of war necessarily. If you joined the Army in 1990 and got out in 2000, excluding Desert Storm, you probably never saw combat. However, you probably DID get moved around. What if your last duty station was in Japan or Korea? What would you do when you came back to the US? It actually happens alot to Army and Marine soldiers. Why on earth is it different?

If there was no war, but people come back from Korea, will they still not have a home to go to? If they're out of the military, it's the same thing. The same process actually. Almost tit for tat.

This really isn't a debate about how much the war costs. It's a debate about the idea that we should support troops indefinitely after their departure from the service. I agree, troops that have served deserve our admiration. Our respect. I know as well or better than anyone on this board. The issue is that we can't create a post-service welfare state. Like I said, how many people in a tank company come out of the military with applicable skills? They should have a plan. The USMC or Army shouldn't be responsible for such plan.

Where have I suggested that returning soldiers be supported indefinitely. If there are problems with employment and housing they should be dealt with on a temporary basis - long enough to reroot those who have been uprooted.

Just as my liberal bias is showing, so is your rather "compassionateless" conservatism.

aevens- there is a difference I am trying to make here between regular army and reserves/gaurd. Prior to Bush, there was no great expectation of serving regular army time, in fact, today, you sign up in the guard- you are pretty much signing up for the same hitch as the regular army.

That alone is a major change.

And Aevens- if we can't afford this war if we can't afford to take care of our soldiers after the war.

Aevans, you're talking about a lot of people who are 18 or 19 when they sign up for military service. How many of them do you think have a plan when they actually sign up? Do you know the main reason why a lot of poor people sign up for military service? They sign up because they see the military as a way to work up to middle class. After all, education benefits is part of the sales pitch for this all-volunteer military of ours. Free health insurance is another touted benefit of the military.

Now, contrast that promise with the sight of homeless veterans from Vietnam and Iraq. When a person goes over to war, the person is at a higher risk of becoming mentally ill or addicted to drugs. Its not OK for the military to send someone off to war and then just boot that person out when he/she is no longer of any use to the military. If the United States can afford to create veterans, then the United States can afford to take better care of its veterans. Maybe free handouts is not the answer. But if homeless war veterans become a common sight in America, its not going to present a good image for our all-volunteer military.

Here's one website from veterans themselves detailing the appalling conditions of our veteran hospitals, and how the military has not done enough to prepare war veterans for a return to the civilian world.
http://www.veteransforamerica.org/index.cf...ebsubtopicid/27

1. It is probably neither possible nor realistic that the military can return a veteran to "at least equal" whatever their financial status was prior to their service. It is an all-volunteer armed forces and very often the motivation to join is to learn some skills that can make you marketable or to make the military a career.

2. There are many reasons why veterans are homeless according to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans:

In addition to the complex set of factors affecting all homelessness -- extreme shortage of affordable housing, livable income, and access to health care -- a large number of displaced and at-risk veterans live with lingering effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and substance abuse, compounded by a lack of family and social support networks.

A top priority is secure, safe, clean housing that offers a supportive environment which is free of drugs and alcohol.

While "most homeless people are single, unaffiliated men … most housing money in existing federal homelessness programs, in contrast, is devoted to helping homeless families or homeless women with dependant children," according to "Is Homelessness a Housing Problem?" in Understanding Homelessness: New Policy and Research Perspectives, published by Fannie Mae Foundation in 1997. link

I don't think it will foster a cycle of dependency to give vets who have fallen on hard times a helping hand and yes, that includes affordable housing, better health care and job training/counseling. What I don't understand is how the very same people who shout, "SUPPORT THE TROOPS only care about the troops while they're over there getting shot at. Once they're back in the world it's "thanks for your service, now drop dead." This nation spends a billion--with a big "B"---EVERY WEEK to carry on the war in Iraq. How is it there's always money to be found for wars and occupation and the propping up of a feeble government and that's Kool and the Gang, but just as soon as we start talking about doing right by the same guys and gals who laid it on the line for the rest of us, suddenly those wallets are padlocked shut?

3. Well, let me throw some examples of things our government and military DOES spend money on and you tell me:

The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets, and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were reimbursable.

The federal government spends $23 billion annually on special interest pork projects such as grants to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or funds to combat teenage “goth” culture in Blue Springs, Missouri.

Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.

Examples of wasteful duplication include: 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water.

Washington spends $60 billion annually on corporate welfare, versus $43 billion on homeland security.

Veterans’ program overpayments cost $800 million annually. link2

The money is there for America to take care of its veterans. It takes some leadership and someone willing to inact a little common sense and a lot of fiscal discipline to make sure taxpayers are getting the most efficient usage of their dollars and its being spent upon priorities and people that are worth it. That definitely includes veterans.

A great nation should be grateful to those who have kept it great. And not be so damn cheap.

I should not even be answering this. Nobody should. This condition should not exist.

But it does, and it is disgusting beyond words.

Phew. Made it through the one-liner and the rant, you know, without actually writing them.

The way this country treats combat vets is disgusting, always has been. I'm not surprised. Simply disappointed.

and angry, and it simmers, and it boils, steams, pops, and it simmers, and angry

Doesn't help that I'm reading Dispatches by Michael Herr for a gig. Gawd this place is full of . . . never mind.

Oh, and regular citizens aren't getting a fair shake either. Never did. Not surprised.

Just disappointed.

Eh, guess that's my problem. Bad attitude, huh? Yeah, it's all my fault. Which I guess makes it all okay.

All the damned "Hoo-Rahs" and "Support our Troops" and flagolatry and yellow ribbon displays don't add up to squat if self-avowed patriots at home refuse/neglect to see to the well-being of those willing to give their lives for their country once their service is no longer required. Too expensive?

Bull hockey!

If what is left of these heroes is a shadow of their former selves on the public dole, then they should be helped out and/or cared for, period.

If we can't handle the embarrassment and extra expense of supporting the troops once they have no more to give to their country, then we shouldn't be starting wars in the first place.

Let's put this in a less compassionate, more mercenary way: If those contemplating military service see how veterans are treated once they're back, will they still want to enlist?

1) Does America owe it's veterans essentially returning them to at least equal to the financial security they enjoyed when they left?
The question has to have two fairly distinct answers. Active duty vs. Guard/Reserve. I do not believe that just because someone served, they are entitled to remain indefinitely on the public dole. The bottom line is soldiers should be expected to plan for their future just as any other American would. Sadly many don’t, just as many of their civilian counterparts.

If the soldier was Guard/Reserve and self employed when he/she was mobilized, then I would agree with some sort of financial assistance in the form of business loans or guarantees. Even then, any military member knows both now and previous to the Bush administration, that deployments were possible. Failure to plan accordingly is in large measure the service members fault.
If the soldier is active duty, then the question is moot. The military doesn’t owe it to anybody to provide a certain standard of living after leaving the service. It owes them the promises made upon swearing the oath; VA benefits, tuition assistance, etc. I have little sympathy for a soldier who leaves service with no plan, no money, no ambition. Not only are there institutional programs and counseling, such as the encompassing Army Career and Alumni Program, but chain of command counseling for soldiers on benefits and services is mandatory.
I’m not heartless, I support continued counseling, job placement, drug rehabilitation and even temporary childcare assistance. Most of these are already part of the benefits package promised to service members. Benefits can be expanded and upgraded from where they are today, there are certainly issues with the VA health care system, but I do not support housing for veterans.


You must have missed all of the Guard/Reserve units that rotated through Bosnia and Kosovo, still there today in fact. The IFOR/SFOR/KFOR mission has been almost entirely Guard/Reserve since around 1996.

This is true DTOM- my bad- this was also after my time, but not by as much.

But still, you have to admit- there hasn't been a time since WW2 really, that bing in the guard pretty much guaruntees combat duty (to some degree, compared to prior times in modern US military history)

I mean- there is nearly no difference in deployment now betwween RA and NG- do you agree?

How about starting to help disabled veterans by reimbursing them more than 11 cents per mile when they have to travel to the nearest VA hospital? How much would that cost?

Whether a veteran remains on the public dole or not should depend on his ability to perform work for a living wage. If he cannot, what do you suggest? That he just be cut off?

PE,

It seems to me we have some folks here, who have bitten into "Social Darwinism."

If the returning soldiers can't make it on their own, then let them swim or sink.

It's part of Bush's "compassionate conservatism." What an oxymoron.

I don’t have any problem raising the mileage allowance, at least on par with what is reimbursed to soldiers when they conduct a permanent change of station move. Off the top of my head, I’d like to say that’s around 23 or 28 cents per mile, but I could be off.
Politically charged, yet meaningless statements like ‘living wage’ aside, I’ve already stated that the VA system is in need of reform and repair. So quite obviously, if a veteran is disabled, then assistance should be available.


Bof, I see nothing wrong with holding veterans to the same basic standards as I would anyone else. Aside from reforms in the system that need to be addressed, there are benefits that apply to veterans, which other Americans are not entitled to. How much more taxpayer dollars would you dole out to people who have not or will not see to their own future?
Our military is filled with great Americans. But it also contains people with some of the same characteristics as in the civilian world. People who live paycheck to paycheck, yet simply have to have the latest X-Box or PSP……simply must have rims and car stereos, each of which cost more than their cars is worth.
If a veteran returns home disabled, then care should be given, and is. If a veteran leaves service with no job, no plan, no clue, then why must I foot the bill?

DTOM, though admittedly quite regional, and dependent on the local housing markets- I have seen good men and women fail even though they had what any sane person would consider "a sound financial plan"- it is just the war that broke them.

IT is almost impossible to find an under 300k dollar 3 bedroom house over 2400 sq ft here. Highly "skilled labor" jobs pay alot more than the military here. Most of the men and women I have done marriage counselling with took an ENORMOUS pay cut by going into the military, and none had any expectations of double deployments, 15 month -2 year deployments, and "stop loss" deployments- it simply ruined them financially. Only a couple of families I saw had any real credit card debt prior to 2003.

I only used the homeless article- because it is the only thing I have seen that addresses the issue at all.

Welfare for life unless disabled?

No way-

restoring them to pre-war financial situation, I am all for it. These guys and gals ARE getting thier jobs back, problem is, they are too far in the hole to save themselves financially upon return.

Also- the over the top rate of PTSD is creating hard core unemployables again- causing a new wave of problems- and we are NOT taking care of our soldiers, even at the basic level in many cases- far too many cases even in Alaska- where over a fifth of the entire population is vet.

Sears is the only employer I know, BTW- that is still paying thier wages while they are gone. Ya, I am pretty much a Sears fan at this point. One manager there has been called up- he made nearly 80k a year before being deployed- Sears kept paying him, and his wife didn't have to worry about bills at least when he was gone.

Gotta give one good story amongst all the sorrow these days.

DTOM I am not advocating permanent, forever and ever housing for returning soldiers. I mentioned six moinths coupled with trainning for those who are caught in unfortunate circustances. There could be extensions for hard cases. In short, I'm calling for temporary action to prevent longer term problems.

The other point I've tried to make, is that those people who suddenly think the optimum age is 30 something, need to know that they'll be paying for this war, one way or another, long after us older cats are gone.