Thursday, September 20, 2012

more on 47% and veterans

Article by Patrick Murphy

Huffington Post not publishing my replies to comments on an article by Patrick Murphy  Veterans Are Vital Part of the '47 Percent.

Decided to record them here without permission.


modeforjoe
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/modeforjoe?action=comments
Our veterans are not "defending our freedoms" as you so vehemently put it. Perhaps only 15% of veterans see combat, the rest are in support roles.

Most of our veterans are drawn from the ranks of those who had few civilian prospects--facing unemployment, lacking education, drifting along.

They have had a good gig with Uncle Sam. Now they are back, out of uniform, facing the same prospects they had before they signed up for three squares and varying levels of risk.

It's damned hard all around. The Vets took the short route to some ephemeral form of prosperity. Now the mirage is over. They are back, and they can rejoin the rest of their colleagues on the streets of our nation, but in no way do they deserve special treatment.

Those veterans who saw combat--the few--and who were wounded as a result of being lied to and thrown into a series of stupid wars--they do deserve our support. They are the victims.

My unpublished reply:

How many people did you personally know who were drafted and sent to fight the war in Vietnam? To say that they took "the short route" and were "drawn from the ranks of those who had (blah, blah, blah)" is not factual ~ they were drafted. Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton might be said to have taken a short cut to prosperity by avoiding the draft.

I know many who were sent to Vietnam, some died there, some came back healthy, some came back with physical and or mental disabilities. They do not consider themselves victims. I agree that those wars were mostly stupid, yet very much disagree that people willing to kill or be killed for our country do not deserve the benefits they earned ~ which is not "special treatment".


The Vulture
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/The_Vulture?action=comments

This writer, like so many libs, have managed to completely misrepresent what MR said. How do you do that with a straight face and pretend to be a legitimate analyst? Or is this pure spin for the Dem faithful?
They do us a disservice.

My reply:

Fairly hard for anyone who listened to the video to misrepresent what Romney said. He said that he could not be bothered with the 47% ~ he could not convince them ~ they will vote for President Obama "no matter what" ~ they consider themselves "victims" ~ and so on. This article points out what thinking citizens know about who some of those 46.4% that did not owe Federal Income tax in 2011 are. They also know that baby boomer senior citizens comprise a big chunk of that 46.4% ~ collecting benefits EARNED by paying into the Social Security system.

Romney implied, that all poor folk will vote for President Obama ~ meaning there are no Romney voters that earn less than $20,000. a year (a bit more if married with children). That is not logical.  Several states that have been heavy Republican voters are states that show the highest numbers of persons living below Federal poverty level.





No comments: