On Monday President Obama signed into law the bipartisan jobs bill for veterans. The bill called the “VOW to Hire Heroes Act” will provide tax credits of up to $2,400 for employers who hire veterans who have been unemployed at least 4 weeks; up to $5,600 for hiring veterans who have been unemployed longer than 6 months; and up to $9,600 for businesses that hire veterans who have service-connected disabilities and have been unemployed longer than 6 months. There are many articles on the law one of which, by CBS news, can be read here.
The question I have is this; Do you think veterans, who voluntarily chose to enlist and to serve, should receive favorable treatment in terms of hiring incentives over any other unemployed worker in this country? Is this fair? I feel that in terms of health care, the the government should absolutely take care of the vets when they return, especially if they are disabled. However, why does serving in the military on any level equate with special privileges when it comes to finding a job? There are many unemployed people in this country who have not chosen to go to join the military and because they have not chosen to do so, they now have a disadvantage in simple terms of incentives to employers, when looking for work. What are your thoughts on this?
Oh, I see. You KNOW there are differences, but you simply choose to ignore them. Okay.
oh i see. unfortunately i'm not as smart as you, guy. but in this discussion i've been under the impression that you are not able to give me an appropriate answer... you preferred to bypass whatever i said with empty and teasing answers like your last two, without taking into consideration what i tried to explain. i think that your purpose is just to repeat your convinction without arguing. sorry, this debate is not interesting anymore.
For combat veterans that sacrifice much in the way of family and civilian careers with long and often multiple deployments, I think it is a no-brainer. However, in this economy, I don't see these incentives inducing employers to hire. It may induce them to choose a veteran over a non-veteran, but it won't create jobs out of thin air.
For combat veterans that sacrifice much in the way of family and civilian careers with long and often multiple deployments, I think it is a no-brainer.
It is their choice to have that life, to sacrifice as you said. Does that make them more entitled to job incentives?
Yes. Although entitled is not the word I'd use. Deserving, perhaps.
Exactly DESERVING was the word I was looking for.
Morally its the right thing to do when it comes to ensuring vets are taken care of. To not do so isn't ethical in the least. Helping them find employment seems like a fair exchange for service... all part of the social contract we make with them.
Yes they should be given special treatment because they provided a service for the country. Its part of the social contract we make with them for giving up years of their life and risk giving their lives so its expected that they recieve extra benefits and incentives once that service is done. In reality military pay isn't a reward its an allowance for basic needs and products during their term of service which isn't hourly based by any means. Basically we ask kids to put their lives on hold for the needs of the country and then expect them to come back and pick up where they left off and its not easy. Another issue to consider and this is a big one is that its not smart to have lots of unemployed vets around because they have higher chance of becoming depressed and more withdrawn from society. These aren't people who have been flipping burgers or ringing up things at your local retail store they are highly trained combat troops who when can pose a risk to themselves and others if they aren't assisted while they try and adapt back into civilian life as best as they can after going through what they have gone through.
I didn't make a social contract with them. I don't ask kids to put their lives at risk. These are independent choices. Not one is making them or asking them to do this. Many people risk their lives in the jobs on a daily basis. Does that means they are entitled to the same preferential treatment? I mean no disrespect.
On your second point I agree with you. Providing support to help vets deal with depression and PTSD is important and many different services should be widely available including job training and job support.
American society overall has made a social contract with service members. If you accept the benefits of being a citizen you are making a contract with people who if need be will do their best to help sustain the quality of life and act on behalf of the interests of the nations citizens abroad. That's just how I see it. The best way to change what those service members are used for on your behalf is to change our leadership which I'm sure you can agree that both parties are full of shit.
yes robert, i believe that the government should take care of returning vets who have been injured or become disabled in service to our country. However, military service is voluntary, at the risk of making a very controversial statement...why are they considered heros? it is true that every country needs to have some form of millitary, to maintain the integrity of it's borders if nothing else, but soldiers are fairly compensated for their service allready (wages, rooom and board, training, and lets not forget about the G.I bill which makes a college education posible after their term of service). none of these are guaranteed to any other group of u.s. citizens, except maybe politicians. i personally, have never asked anyone to risk their life, or to put their life on hold to go to another country and kill people i don't know for reasons i'm not sure that any of us really understand. that being said, i have many friends and family members who have served and i truely mean no disrespect. it just seems to me that, yes, they do a job that is dangerous, there is a very real risk of death and dismemberment, but the same can be said of police officers, firemen, oil rig workers, steel workers, lumbermen, and many other jobs here in our country. they knew the risk when they took the job. i do sympathize, i know re-entry into society can be confusing and difficult, but i don't believe that vets should recieve any special treatment in the job market, especially in this economy, employment should go to the most qualified.
Just so that you know (since I lived on post for many years) the military doesn't pay for as much as you think. Housing is subtracted from pay and many other things. Just wanted to clear that part up. Service members are not compensated fairly overall for what they do. Its quite disgusting to see how civilian contractors are paid ten times more then your average service member by the defense dept not to mention the obscene amounts over paid to defense contractors because of massive gouging. I don't think I know many service members that ask to be called hero's but I can assure you that there are heroic actions taking place everyday by the grunts that don't care about politics but about their buddies and getting home to see their families or trying to help people they come in contact with. I'm not going to say that all our military actions have been wise over the years, right or that even all service members are good people but the majority have the the intent of serving you whether you asked them or not. I'd venture to say that a Marine takes far greater risk then any civilian worker does because there is always that real possibility that the next horrible war will break at a moments notice. This world is unpredictable and what we think isn't possible is just around the corner and never seen coming. I will concede that in some specialized fields of employment a civilian is far more likely to be able to fill the role better but for the majority of the employment there is nothing wrong with the government encouraging the hiring of service members and providing benefits for doing so.