Posted on Sep 22, 2015
Why Are Veterans Not An Issue in the Debates?
37.7K
438
294
50
50
0
Why Are Veterans Not An Issue in the Debates?
RP Members do you agree with the article and the lack of concern for Veterans in this upcoming election or are there more important issues?
Your thoughts and comments welcome!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dustin-demoss/veterans-debate_b_8164118.html
With the 2016 presidential election quickly approaching, campaign season is in full swing and boasts no shortage of candidates. Presidential hopefuls from all sides of the political spectrum have pulled no punches when it comes to the multitude of issues currently concerning the American public. In fact, candidates have weighed in on any number of topics, from immigration reform to civil liberties, with incredible diverse and aggressive opinions. Perhaps this willingness to engage and volunteer opinions is what makes the lack of attention to one topic in particular so striking, especially in the glare of the ongoing G.O.P. presidential debates.
Do you know where the candidates stand when it comes to veterans' affairs and healthcare needs?
A Growing Lack of Attention to Veterans
The lack of attention to American veterans and the care they receive once they return home is not necessarily a new development when it comes to presidential debates. Veterans and their supporters faced this same problem in the 2012 debates, for example, where only repeated urging convinced the candidates to briefly consider the topic. And as more and more people are aware, the number of candidates with any sort of military service background is constantly shrinking. Not only is this concerning for a country that is still in the midst of a war that has already spanned 14 years, but it's especially worrisome considering that one of the major topics up for debate is the looming ISIS/ISIL threat and how the United States will engage with it.
RP Members do you agree with the article and the lack of concern for Veterans in this upcoming election or are there more important issues?
Your thoughts and comments welcome!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dustin-demoss/veterans-debate_b_8164118.html
With the 2016 presidential election quickly approaching, campaign season is in full swing and boasts no shortage of candidates. Presidential hopefuls from all sides of the political spectrum have pulled no punches when it comes to the multitude of issues currently concerning the American public. In fact, candidates have weighed in on any number of topics, from immigration reform to civil liberties, with incredible diverse and aggressive opinions. Perhaps this willingness to engage and volunteer opinions is what makes the lack of attention to one topic in particular so striking, especially in the glare of the ongoing G.O.P. presidential debates.
Do you know where the candidates stand when it comes to veterans' affairs and healthcare needs?
A Growing Lack of Attention to Veterans
The lack of attention to American veterans and the care they receive once they return home is not necessarily a new development when it comes to presidential debates. Veterans and their supporters faced this same problem in the 2012 debates, for example, where only repeated urging convinced the candidates to briefly consider the topic. And as more and more people are aware, the number of candidates with any sort of military service background is constantly shrinking. Not only is this concerning for a country that is still in the midst of a war that has already spanned 14 years, but it's especially worrisome considering that one of the major topics up for debate is the looming ISIS/ISIL threat and how the United States will engage with it.
Election 2016
Elections
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Issues
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 121
2
2
0
I think there are a bunch of issues at play.
There just aren't that many of us, so our issues aren't that important on a national level. The average American cares more about things like the economy and budget. We could swing a couple of major states though, so I think most of the veterans issues talk will probably show up in campaign speeches in states like Florida, which has 1.5m veterans.
I also think there's an assumption that we're all Republicans or at the very least will vote Republican reflexively. That would be wrong, but even vets seem to have a hard time understanding we're an ideologically diverse group, so a civilian making that assumption is easy to understand.
Also, veterans issues are...dangerous. Just look at Trump and Carson. What they have said made waves in the media and the military community. The cost-benefit is skewed negatively; say something great and get maybe a little boost...say something wrong and hooboy! You're going to pay. Best bet is to just nod helpfully in that direction without saying anything of substance.
Finally, I think Jon Stewart covered it best in the video I'm posting. Everyone loves to screw vets...
There just aren't that many of us, so our issues aren't that important on a national level. The average American cares more about things like the economy and budget. We could swing a couple of major states though, so I think most of the veterans issues talk will probably show up in campaign speeches in states like Florida, which has 1.5m veterans.
I also think there's an assumption that we're all Republicans or at the very least will vote Republican reflexively. That would be wrong, but even vets seem to have a hard time understanding we're an ideologically diverse group, so a civilian making that assumption is easy to understand.
Also, veterans issues are...dangerous. Just look at Trump and Carson. What they have said made waves in the media and the military community. The cost-benefit is skewed negatively; say something great and get maybe a little boost...say something wrong and hooboy! You're going to pay. Best bet is to just nod helpfully in that direction without saying anything of substance.
Finally, I think Jon Stewart covered it best in the video I'm posting. Everyone loves to screw vets...
World of WarriorShaft - Terrible Memory Lane
The American government has found ways to abuse its veterans in every era.
(2)
(0)
PFC Don Palumbo
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Col. Burroughs, Thanks much for your fine work on this site. It is a breath of fresh air to read the comments of our brothers. Some are very sad, others very inspirational. I believe this site will be a big help for many. Keep up the fight.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Republicans have traditionally been pro-military, but with this bunch I'm beginning to wonder if they are actually pro-war.
I also wonder if their lack of any significant plan to take care of veterans is that we are such a small percentage of the population that they do not consider us an important demographic.
I also wonder if their lack of any significant plan to take care of veterans is that we are such a small percentage of the population that they do not consider us an important demographic.
(2)
(0)
PO2 Gerry Roberson Sr.
Pro-war for the profits of their banking/corporate backers. See, "War is a racket", by Gen . Smedley Butler, USMC.
(1)
(0)
PFC Don Palumbo
Republicans are pro military, not for war. More so to prevent war. Almost all of our wars have been under Democrats. Something to think about. We don't need war so big money people can make lots of money making things. If that were the case all we would have to do is make unending supplies of war materials, Have fake wars and throw most of the stuff into the ocean. No one needs to be killed if money was the main reason to have a large Army. We have wars when we are THREATENED.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
I disagree that the candidates are not mentioning veterans...or at least the ones I have heard or better stated, I am listening too...BUT I do agree that there is a growing lack of attention to Veteran issues because the veterans are shrinking factor in elections and do not really vote as an interest block. You cannot bring a block of votes to the table, they will move to those that can. Maybe this is why Veterans were only mentioned by two candidates during the broadcast of the last debate? Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina several times mentioned health care delay problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and business mogul Donald Trump offered a broad promise to improve care for vets.
As I consider it now, only the political outsiders are seeming to care about our Veterans...maybe it is time we show the political class why that is a mistake?
Fiorina in 2016!
I disagree that the candidates are not mentioning veterans...or at least the ones I have heard or better stated, I am listening too...BUT I do agree that there is a growing lack of attention to Veteran issues because the veterans are shrinking factor in elections and do not really vote as an interest block. You cannot bring a block of votes to the table, they will move to those that can. Maybe this is why Veterans were only mentioned by two candidates during the broadcast of the last debate? Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina several times mentioned health care delay problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and business mogul Donald Trump offered a broad promise to improve care for vets.
As I consider it now, only the political outsiders are seeming to care about our Veterans...maybe it is time we show the political class why that is a mistake?
Fiorina in 2016!
(2)
(0)
PFC Don Palumbo
Good article Col. We will overcome. We are American soldiers and we never lose a fight.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Because our interests are fragmented (non unified) on issues facing veterans. Too many organizations not enough resources and in fighting are what keeps our issues from the fore front.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
It seems they haven't really addressed much in the way of policies and strategies on any topic, let alone us. I believe we are a huge voting block and that we do have some unofficial "PACs" when it comes to the Congressionally chartered veteran service organizations. Some candidates recently spoke at the VFW and American Legion national conferences for example. At this point, until the field is whittled down to a responsible few candidates, I'm not sure they are worthy of "our" time.
Conversely, we are a sensitive topic. While there is more patriotism displayed by the general public today, which seemed to had been lost after the "greatest generation" served, we are also a costly expense on the taxpayer. Candidates have to be very careful to balance their perspectives when it comes to spending the taxpayer's dollars.
Conversely, we are a sensitive topic. While there is more patriotism displayed by the general public today, which seemed to had been lost after the "greatest generation" served, we are also a costly expense on the taxpayer. Candidates have to be very careful to balance their perspectives when it comes to spending the taxpayer's dollars.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; Until someone comes out with an IPO for "Veterans Unlimited" (an LLP) that promises to make big profits fast out of "merchandising" veterans, veterans are not going to be a big deal as far as the political parties are concerned (well, as far as ACTUALLY doing something to improve the condition of veterans is concerned at any rate).
Do I disagree with that position?
Is a frog that has been run over by a steamroller flat?
Do I disagree with that position?
Is a frog that has been run over by a steamroller flat?
(2)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
Because most veterans are honorable and will only go to the ballot box once? Just sayin'...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS - Chief; Are you, then, saying that the remaining 75+% of Americans are NOT "honourable" and WILL go the ballot box MORE THAN once?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Lets start with the premise of the article. There has only been Republican debates, so far. The Dems are letting the Rs run the circular firing squad, while playing populist gamesmanship. We will see what is asked or explained by them when the time comes.
Now, the reason the Republican Debates have not addressed the current VA and other Veteran related debates is it has not been brought up by the Moderators, who select the questions and drive the topics. I would bet the Republicans would have preferred this area of questioning more than the Stuff they were asked.
As I posted before, with substantiation, the largest number of voters from the military vote Conservative, so they aren't placing as much emphasis on the military at this time. The Democrats see it as a lost element of the voter electorate, and ignore it unless they are directly asked about their position. I believe the actions of the current administration with regards to the VA and the military speaks for itself.
If we actually weren't like herding cats and could form a PAC that advocates for the military, rather than the disjointed effort we see, we would have a significant voting bloc.
Now, the reason the Republican Debates have not addressed the current VA and other Veteran related debates is it has not been brought up by the Moderators, who select the questions and drive the topics. I would bet the Republicans would have preferred this area of questioning more than the Stuff they were asked.
As I posted before, with substantiation, the largest number of voters from the military vote Conservative, so they aren't placing as much emphasis on the military at this time. The Democrats see it as a lost element of the voter electorate, and ignore it unless they are directly asked about their position. I believe the actions of the current administration with regards to the VA and the military speaks for itself.
If we actually weren't like herding cats and could form a PAC that advocates for the military, rather than the disjointed effort we see, we would have a significant voting bloc.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
This, however, shows another issue with the republican contestants, they really do alienate whole demographics... veterans, gays, hispanics, alot of women. They can't keep doing this if they hope to win a national election. straight middle/upper class White males do not make up enough of the population to give them a win.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Jeff N. - Corporal; Indeed the government SHOULD be able to do it cheaper because the government "doesn't make a profit".
Unfortunately the very structure of state monopolies mitigates AGAINST efficiency and that means when "the government does it" you simply substitute "waste, fraud, corruption, (inefficient) bidding process(es)), and general inefficiency)" for "profit". There is absolutely no incentive for a state monopoly to operate efficiently as it has a captive market and absolute control on price.
IF the role of the VA was restricted to setting standards, and administering contracts (with a clearly set out set of 'service criteria' in the contracts) and private providers were the ones who were actually delivering the services (with clear cut and heavy penalties for failure to meet contract specifications), I suspect that the whole system would operate much more effectively.
The only caveat on that is that the 'service contracts' would have to include the "non-profitable" as well as the "profitable" service areas or else the government would end up getting stuck with all the situations where the costs were disproportionately high and the private providers would be able to cherry pick the situations where they could make big bucks fast.
Unfortunately the very structure of state monopolies mitigates AGAINST efficiency and that means when "the government does it" you simply substitute "waste, fraud, corruption, (inefficient) bidding process(es)), and general inefficiency)" for "profit". There is absolutely no incentive for a state monopoly to operate efficiently as it has a captive market and absolute control on price.
IF the role of the VA was restricted to setting standards, and administering contracts (with a clearly set out set of 'service criteria' in the contracts) and private providers were the ones who were actually delivering the services (with clear cut and heavy penalties for failure to meet contract specifications), I suspect that the whole system would operate much more effectively.
The only caveat on that is that the 'service contracts' would have to include the "non-profitable" as well as the "profitable" service areas or else the government would end up getting stuck with all the situations where the costs were disproportionately high and the private providers would be able to cherry pick the situations where they could make big bucks fast.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
COL Ted Mc . I think we mostly agree here. With government running almost anything (vs. a private/public company) you trade profit for inefficiency, waste, corruption etc. I do think the VA could start with chunks of their care and "outsource" them to private and public hospitals (both for profit and NFP institutions). We don't have to try to eat the elephant in one bite.
The VA has aptly demonstrated that the government, even with the best intentions, is unable to deliver the care and services they have promised to deliver to veterans.
The VA has aptly demonstrated that the government, even with the best intentions, is unable to deliver the care and services they have promised to deliver to veterans.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Aaron Baltosser
If the gov could run the VA efficiently while being the lowest bidder I would ask how? There is a reason someone is the lowest bidder. What corners are they cutting while not openly mentioning their plan?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO1 Aaron Baltosser - PO; Personally, if (to take a really simplistic example) if there were two companies bidding on supplying "X" amount of "Y" that had "Z" properties I wouldn't be in the least bit concerned at HOW one company managed to come up with it's price PROVIDED that they actually delivered "X" amount of "Y" that had "Z" properties.
The "trick" is to build in really stiff penalties (and to enforce them rigidly) if the winner of the contract DOESN'T deliver "X" amount of "Y" that has "Z" properties.
The "trick" is to build in really stiff penalties (and to enforce them rigidly) if the winner of the contract DOESN'T deliver "X" amount of "Y" that has "Z" properties.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google