0
0

Bringing Home Troops... Skyrocketing unemployment?


 invite response                
2011 Aug 2, 11:51am   1,485 views  4 comments

by LAO   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

I've believed this is a major reason why troops aren't being brought home... Who wants the bad press of unemployed, homeless soldiers on their watch?

Either the troops will come home to no jobs, or they'll apply and get the few jobs that are available over the thousands of other qualified applicants...

Either way.. higher unemployment is inevitable without increased spending.

Everyone says "BRING THE TROOPS HOME".. but it probably isn't good for them or us.

Comments 1 - 4 of 4        Search these comments

1   Truthplease   2011 Aug 2, 11:18pm  

Yep, the military will undergo reductions in personnel. It is unfortunate how many homeless people are veterans. The unemployment rate for veterans is very high right now and will probably go higher. Over the next 3 years we could easily see 150K+ reduction in our military force.

Hopefully these men and women use their GI Bill and get educated. You don't want these highly combat trained men and women sitting around getting desperate for money to support their families.

Bringing the troops home should be a strategic decision that supports US interests against foreign threats. We shouldn't bring economics into decisions of military use.

2   Vicente   2011 Aug 3, 2:16am  

Economics is always a factor with veterans.

Heard of the Bonus Army? Roosevelt sent down an order exempting 25,000 CCC positions from their usual employment requirements, specifically to ensure WWI veterans were not standing in soup lines getting angry.

Throughout history, suddenly idling a bunch of military people and leaving them without work & salary has been hazardous.

After WWII, the G.I. Bill was drafted with the Bonus Army march in mind. Richie Rich paid for that GI Bill among many other things. All done in the service of building a better long-term future. Back then you could count on some modicum of patriotism from the rich, not open flaunting of sociopathy.

3   bob2356   2011 Aug 3, 4:49am  

This post makes no sense. Where does anyone propose to bring the troops home and fire them all? There would be tremendous savings just by eliminating the logistics of supporting overseas bases. This is an all volunteer military. Stop recruiting and the troop levels will drop without firing anyone. The people currently serving will leave the service at a time when it is best for them. No one is going to pull back the 200k people stationed overseas and rif (reduction in force ie fired) them the next day. It's not a consideration at all.

4   Truthplease   2011 Aug 3, 5:53am  

bob2356 says

Where does anyone propose to bring the troops home and fire them all?

It isn't called firing Bob, it is downsizing. They have already adjusted the regulations and orders to start filtering people out over the next 3 years. Army about 40K+ reduction, Marines 20K+ reduction, Navy probably about 3-10K, Air Force probably not that much either. Here is the big one, I would expect probably 110-140K plus of civilian/Government service workers over the next 3 years.

Roughly 200K people reduced in the next three years. It will be a slow and methodical so we won't see 200K people out of a job right away. It was part of the plan to reduce the defense budget. (but you are right bob, it won't happen in one big shot. It will be slow and methodical.)

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions