[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bonus Army debate (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/14/2010 8:44:51 PM EDT
|
So we don't hijack the Patton Greatest Achievement thread, can we start a civil discussion on the Bonus Army incident here?
I have always wondered about this. My understanding is that the veterans were owed money, then told they would have to wait until a later date to be paid with interest. Most were fine with this until the economy went to shit and they needed what was owed. They organized in DC, peacefully according to my research, and then were charged out by a military force. Let's start the debate right here......I have 10 PBR's waiting to be emptied and snow falling outside. Is there a better way to enjoy an evening? |
|
Quoted: MacArthur was the man responsible as was the President. Typical story .GOV lied Veterans ended up getting the shaft. Water is wet Sky is Blue more news at 11So we don't hijack the Patton Greatest Achievement thread, can we start a civil discussion on the Bonus Army incident here? I have always wondered about this. My understanding is that the veterans were owed money, then told they would have to wait until a later date to be paid with interest. Most were fine with this until the economy went to shit and they needed what was owed. They organized in DC, peacefully according to my research, and then were charged out by a military force. Let's start the debate right here......I have 10 PBR's waiting to be emptied and snow falling outside. Is there a better way to enjoy an evening? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
MacArthur was the man responsible as was the President. Typical story .GOV lied Veterans ended up getting the shaft. Water is wet Sky is Blue more news at 11
So we don't hijack the Patton Greatest Achievement thread, can we start a civil discussion on the Bonus Army incident here? I have always wondered about this. My understanding is that the veterans were owed money, then told they would have to wait until a later date to be paid with interest. Most were fine with this until the economy went to shit and they needed what was owed. They organized in DC, peacefully according to my research, and then were charged out by a military force. Let's start the debate right here......I have 10 PBR's waiting to be emptied and snow falling outside. Is there a better way to enjoy an evening? Hoover was pretty explicit in his orders to MacArthur. MacArthur disobeyed his orders, crossed the bridge into Anacostia, and somehow the shantytown the marchers and other derelicts had built there got burned up. At any rate, FDR liked the outcome. |
|
Quoted:
They wanted their money earlier than the .gov set date and would not disperse. Pathetic display all around (by all parties) and just shows how anyone can act when they expect a handout and how ugly things can get.
Was it really a handout when it was something they were owed? |
|
Quoted: So we don't hijack the Patton Greatest Achievement thread, can we start a civil discussion on the Bonus Army incident here? I have always wondered about this. My understanding is that the veterans were owed money, then told they would have to wait until a later date to be paid with interest. Most were fine with this until the economy went to shit and they needed what was owed. They organized in DC, peacefully according to my research, and then were charged out by a military force. Let's start the debate right here......I have 10 PBR's waiting to be emptied and snow falling outside. Is there a better way to enjoy an evening? Your understanding is... Off.. The veterans were, at time of enlistment for WWI, promised a bonus at a FUTURE date, but wanted it 'now' because of the Depression. Of course, the government said 'You'll get it when we said you'll get it'... Their solution? Form the 'Bonus Army' and march on Washington. They were seen by the Army (remember, this is DC - 'Posse Comitatus' does not apply, etc) as a potential communist insurrection (Remember: Smedly Butler, a prominent figure in this event, was a spokesman for a pro-Communist organization), taking advantage of the economic situation (remember current events, the rise of Marxisim in Russia, etc), and thus a military response was used to disburse them. The number actually killed in the 'incident' can be counted on your fingers... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: So we don't hijack the Patton Greatest Achievement thread, can we start a civil discussion on the Bonus Army incident here? I have always wondered about this. My understanding is that the veterans were owed money, then told they would have to wait until a later date to be paid with interest. Most were fine with this until the economy went to shit and they needed what was owed. They organized in DC, peacefully according to my research, and then were charged out by a military force. Let's start the debate right here......I have 10 PBR's waiting to be emptied and snow falling outside. Is there a better way to enjoy an evening? Your understanding is... Off.. The veterans were, at time of enlistment for WWI, promised a bonus at a FUTURE date, but wanted it 'now' because of the Depression. Of course, the government said 'You'll get it when we said you'll get it'... Their solution? Form the 'Bonus Army' and march on Washington. They were seen by the Army (remember, this is DC - 'Posse Comitatus' does not apply, etc) as a potential communist insurrection (Remember: Smedly Butler, a prominent figure in this event, was a spokesman for a pro-Communist organization), taking advantage of the economic situation (remember current events, the rise of Marxisim in Russia, etc), and thus a military response was used to disburse them. The number actually killed in the 'incident' can be counted on your fingers... Dave_A has got this one right. |
|
Quoted:
Did they ever actually get it????
Quoted:
So we don't hijack the Patton Greatest Achievement thread, can we start a civil discussion on the Bonus Army incident here? I have always wondered about this. My understanding is that the veterans were owed money, then told they would have to wait until a later date to be paid with interest. Most were fine with this until the economy went to shit and they needed what was owed. They organized in DC, peacefully according to my research, and then were charged out by a military force. Let's start the debate right here......I have 10 PBR's waiting to be emptied and snow falling outside. Is there a better way to enjoy an evening? Your understanding is... Off.. The veterans were, at time of enlistment for WWI, promised a bonus at a FUTURE date, but wanted it 'now' because of the Depression. Of course, the government said 'You'll get it when we said you'll get it'... Their solution? Form the 'Bonus Army' and march on Washington. They were seen by the Army (remember, this is DC - 'Posse Comitatus' does not apply, etc) as a potential communist insurrection (Remember: Smedly Butler, a prominent figure in this event, was a spokesman for a pro-Communist organization), taking advantage of the economic situation (remember current events, the rise of Marxisim in Russia, etc), and thus a military response was used to disburse them. The number actually killed in the 'incident' can be counted on your fingers... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Did they ever actually get it????Quoted: So we don't hijack the Patton Greatest Achievement thread, can we start a civil discussion on the Bonus Army incident here? I have always wondered about this. My understanding is that the veterans were owed money, then told they would have to wait until a later date to be paid with interest. Most were fine with this until the economy went to shit and they needed what was owed. They organized in DC, peacefully according to my research, and then were charged out by a military force. Let's start the debate right here......I have 10 PBR's waiting to be emptied and snow falling outside. Is there a better way to enjoy an evening? Your understanding is... Off.. The veterans were, at time of enlistment for WWI, promised a bonus at a FUTURE date, but wanted it 'now' because of the Depression. Of course, the government said 'You'll get it when we said you'll get it'... Their solution? Form the 'Bonus Army' and march on Washington. They were seen by the Army (remember, this is DC - 'Posse Comitatus' does not apply, etc) as a potential communist insurrection (Remember: Smedly Butler, a prominent figure in this event, was a spokesman for a pro-Communist organization), taking advantage of the economic situation (remember current events, the rise of Marxisim in Russia, etc), and thus a military response was used to disburse them. The number actually killed in the 'incident' can be counted on your fingers... Yes - they eventually got it early, when a second 'Bonus Army' group (Hebert Hoover having disbursed the first one by force, as noted above) managed to get representatives in touch with Elanor Roosevelt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army |
|
Quoted: Quoted: They wanted their money earlier than the .gov set date and would not disperse. Pathetic display all around (by all parties) and just shows how anyone can act when they expect a handout and how ugly things can get. Was it really a handout when it was something they were owed? It was something they were owed in 1945 (the bonus certificates were 20 year bonds - each veteran was essentially given a T-bill). They wanted it in 1930 (15 years before maturity date). They eventually got it (over FDR's veto) in 1936. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: MacArthur was the man responsible as was the President. Typical story .GOV lied Veterans ended up getting the shaft. Water is wet Sky is Blue more news at 11So we don't hijack the Patton Greatest Achievement thread, can we start a civil discussion on the Bonus Army incident here? I have always wondered about this. My understanding is that the veterans were owed money, then told they would have to wait until a later date to be paid with interest. Most were fine with this until the economy went to shit and they needed what was owed. They organized in DC, peacefully according to my research, and then were charged out by a military force. Let's start the debate right here......I have 10 PBR's waiting to be emptied and snow falling outside. Is there a better way to enjoy an evening? Hoover was pretty explicit in his orders to MacArthur. MacArthur disobeyed his orders, crossed the bridge into Anacostia, and somehow the shantytown the marchers and other derelicts had built there got burned up. At any rate, FDR liked the outcome. Hoover, not FDR, was in charge.... |
|
Quoted: Dave A..who the fuck are you ?? you know more crazy shit than anyone ive ever seen post....that shit about Smedley Butler...had no Idea and now I looked it up...you must trip your officers out with all this shit ! I think he reads a lot. I have a brother like that. |
|
Quoted:
Dave A..who the fuck are you ?? you know more crazy shit than anyone ive ever seen post....that shit about Smedley Butler...had no Idea and now I looked it up...you must trip your officers out with all this shit ! Click here to unlock the secrets to the universe. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Dave A..who the fuck are you ?? you know more crazy shit than anyone ive ever seen post....that shit about Smedley Butler...had no Idea and now I looked it up...you must trip your officers out with all this shit ! Click here to unlock the secrets to the universe. With that much knowledge out there, it amazes me more people don's spend time improving themselves. |
|
participation in the suppression of the bonus army is imo Patton's most shameful moment, worse than the field hospital slapping incedent. They had assembled peaceably to demand that the government owed them for their service, amd the government calls out the cavalry to ride them down.
n 28 July, 1932, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the police evacuation of the Bonus Army veterans, who resisted; the police shot at them, and killed two. When told of the killings, President Hoover ordered the U.S. Army to effect the evacuation of the Bonus Army from Washington, D.C.
At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, Fort Myer, Virginia, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of Civil Service employees left work to line the street and watch the U.S. Army attack its own veterans. The Bonus Marchers, believing the display was in their honour, cheered the troops until Maj. Patton charged the cavalry against them — an action which prompted the Civil Service employee spectators to yell, "Shame! Shame!" After the cavalry charge, infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, entered the Bonus Army camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River, to their largest camp; President Hoover ordered the Army assault stopped, however, Gen. MacArthur—feeling this free-speech exercise was a Communist attempt at overthrowing the U.S. Government—ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Hundreds of veterans were injured, several were killed — including William Hushka and Eric Carlson; a veteran's wife miscarried; and many other veterans were hurt. The Posse Comitatus Act — forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military — did not apply to Washington, D.C., because it is the federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17). The exemption was created because of an earlier "Bonus March". In 1781, most of the Continental Army was demobilized without pay, two years later, in 1783, hundreds of Pennsylvania war veterans marched on Philadelphia, surrounded the State House wherein Congress was in session, and demanded their pay. The U.S. Congress fled to Princeton, New Jersey, and, several weeks later, the U.S. Army expelled the war veterans back to home, out of the national capital. |
|
WWI vets were thinking "what good is a T-bill in 1945 when the SHTF now?" Nothing is ever set in stone in politics or government and the veterans wanted redress for their grievances.
Of course, it's just so easy to pawn it all off to the commies and cheer it when destitute vets "get what's coming to them." 
|
|
Quoted:
WWI vets were thinking "what good is a T-bill in 1945 when the SHTF now?" Nothing is ever set in stone in politics or government and the veterans wanted redress for their grievances. Of course, it's just so easy to pawn it all off to the commies and cheer it when destitute vets "get what's coming to them." Funny, if it were welfare recipients who were demanding their benefits early, I'd bet you would have a different view. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
WWI vets were thinking "what good is a T-bill in 1945 when the SHTF now?" Nothing is ever set in stone in politics or government and the veterans wanted redress for their grievances. Of course, it's just so easy to pawn it all off to the commies and cheer it when destitute vets "get what's coming to them." Funny, if it were welfare recipients who were demanding their benefits early, I'd bet you would have a different view. Take a few minutes and consider my history here on the site. Then tell me if you think I'd cheer force being used on unarmed citizens. Go ahead. It shouldn't take you long. |
|
Quoted: WWI vets were thinking "what good is a T-bill in 1945 when the SHTF now?" Nothing is ever set in stone in politics or government and the veterans wanted redress for their grievances. Of course, it's just so easy to pawn it all off to the commies and cheer it when destitute vets "get what's coming to them." Bad situation all around. I can see both sides of the issue, and I don't think anyone handled anything right on either side. It's one of those incidents that just... well, was fucked all around. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WWI vets were thinking "what good is a T-bill in 1945 when the SHTF now?" Nothing is ever set in stone in politics or government and the veterans wanted redress for their grievances. Of course, it's just so easy to pawn it all off to the commies and cheer it when destitute vets "get what's coming to them." Funny, if it were welfare recipients who were demanding their benefits early, I'd bet you would have a different view. Take a few minutes and consider my history here on the site. Then tell me if you think I'd cheer force being used on unarmed citizens. Go ahead. It shouldn't take you long. You do realize that the Bonus Army of 1932 wasn't the first bonus army in our history, and past bonus armies had even forced Congress out of D.C. Add to that the dimension of communism, and yes it was prevalent in the US up until the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and you can see why Hoover reacted the way he did. |
|
Quoted:
You do realize that the Bonus Army of 1932 wasn't the first bonus army in our history, and past bonus armies had even forced Congress out of D.C. Add to that the dimension of communism, and yes it was prevalent in the US up until the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and you can see why Hoover reacted the way he did. I realize you posted something about me that you realize is incorrect. 
|
|
Part of the problem is that the ex-soldiers who stood to receive the biggest bonuses were the blacks. Pershing consented to lending the USCT out because the Allies desperately needed reinforcements and wanted the American Army penny parceled out to refill their depleted ranks. Pershing wanted the US Army to fight as an army under American control (yay). As a concession though, he loaned the Allies the USCT. So, they saw combat first and more of it and were entitled to bigger bonuses. This upset the Southern white politicians who recognized the threat to the social order that the poor whites would be suddenly placed behind the blacks. Thus, it was decided to pay all ex-soldiers twenty years after they served. By this time, they would be middle aged, married with children and unable to take full advantage of the money. Young men could start businesses and thrive. Middle age men try to survive and reach retirement.
Read the book, The Bonus Army. If you're too lazy to read, then join (free) the Pritzker Military Library and there's a free down loadable podcast that has an author talk on the book. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You do realize that the Bonus Army of 1932 wasn't the first bonus army in our history, and past bonus armies had even forced Congress out of D.C. Add to that the dimension of communism, and yes it was prevalent in the US up until the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and you can see why Hoover reacted the way he did. I realize you posted something about me that you realize is incorrect. Actually, I think many would sit here and cheer if the police were used to break up a large number of protesters who were welfare recipients demanding benefits. Would you be among them? I don't know. It is impossible to know until it happens. The fact of the matter is when you have 17,000 veterans and their families for a total of 43,000 people being dispersed by 2 regiments of troops and you only have 4 people killed, I think that's pretty damn good considering the tactics and tools available to those two regiments of troops 78 years ago. We have far more less lethal options today. Heck, look at the 1992 LA riots, over 50 people killed and 2,000 injured. The Watts riots had over 30 killed and 1,000 injured. I think it all needs to be put into perspective. |
|
Quoted:
They wanted their money earlier than the .gov set date and would not disperse. Pathetic display all around (by all parties) and just shows how anyone can act when they expect a handout and how ugly things can get.
What kind of person classifies a debt to a soldier who fought in a God awful war as a fucking handout? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
WWI vets were thinking "what good is a T-bill in 1945 when the SHTF now?" Nothing is ever set in stone in politics or government and the veterans wanted redress for their grievances. Of course, it's just so easy to pawn it all off to the commies and cheer it when destitute vets "get what's coming to them." Funny, if it were welfare recipients who were demanding their benefits early, I'd bet you would have a different view. Veterans earned it, welfare recipients are just leeches. Try a valid comparison. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WWI vets were thinking "what good is a T-bill in 1945 when the SHTF now?" Nothing is ever set in stone in politics or government and the veterans wanted redress for their grievances. Of course, it's just so easy to pawn it all off to the commies and cheer it when destitute vets "get what's coming to them." Funny, if it were welfare recipients who were demanding their benefits early, I'd bet you would have a different view. Veterans earned it, welfare recipients are just leeches. Try a valid comparison. I am a vet, and if I was promised something in 20 years, and then start demanding it in 10, it would make me little better than a welfare recipient. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You do realize that the Bonus Army of 1932 wasn't the first bonus army in our history, and past bonus armies had even forced Congress out of D.C. Add to that the dimension of communism, and yes it was prevalent in the US up until the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and you can see why Hoover reacted the way he did. I realize you posted something about me that you realize is incorrect. Actually, I think many would sit here and cheer if the police were used to break up a large number of protesters who were welfare recipients demanding benefits. Would you be among them? I don't know. It is impossible to know until it happens. The fact of the matter is when you have 17,000 veterans and their families for a total of 43,000 people being dispersed by 2 regiments of troops and you only have 4 people killed, I think that's pretty damn good considering the tactics and tools available to those two regiments of troops 78 years ago. We have far more less lethal options today. Heck, look at the 1992 LA riots, over 50 people killed and 2,000 injured. The Watts riots had over 30 killed and 1,000 injured. I think it all needs to be put into perspective. True. There is a whole lot of revisionist history around the Bonus Army, mostly coming from the same crowd that has a revisionist history of militias and loves to demonize anything the government does. Fact is that had they really wanted to be violent and brutal when they removed them the death toll would ahve been in the thousands. When you look at the totality of the situation, including the fact that during this period our nation came very close to becoming a socialist/communist state, you can understand why having a huge crowd of people assembled in Washington, with communist agitators among them, demaning what amounts to a government handout, and refusing to disperse when they did not get it woudl be seen as a potential powder keg. Much like the labor movement in the same period, the Bonus Marchers were in good part being used as pawns by agitators with an agenda. A red agenda. Had the Bonus Army been left alone and the communist agitators infiltrated more and taken control there is a good likelyhood the bonus marchers would have led the communist takeover of Washingtonb, even if most didn't really even know what communism was.... the reds had agitated cola miners into armed revolt in WV as well, so saying it is unlikey is to ignore how they operated during that time. It was a bad situation all around, and badly handled on both ends. But to portray the Bonus Marchers as just a bunch of poor vets trying to get what was owed them is to ignore the reality of what happened. |
|
Quoted: Dave A..who the fuck are you ?? you know more crazy shit than anyone ive ever seen post....that shit about Smedley Butler...had no Idea and now I looked it up...you must trip your officers out with all this shit ! At my old unit we'd have a lot of nights with a lot of down time. We had nightly "This day in history" on wikipedia (search feb 15 for instance), and if we still had time left over we'd play 6 degrees of wikipedia (get from article A to article B w/ 6 hotlinks or less, no stubs) or just hit random article all night. You learn a lot of obscure stuff doing that for months. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WWI vets were thinking "what good is a T-bill in 1945 when the SHTF now?" Nothing is ever set in stone in politics or government and the veterans wanted redress for their grievances. Of course, it's just so easy to pawn it all off to the commies and cheer it when destitute vets "get what's coming to them." Funny, if it were welfare recipients who were demanding their benefits early, I'd bet you would have a different view. Veterans earned it, welfare recipients are just leeches. Try a valid comparison. Try learning some history. The war was over in 1918. The "bonus" wasn't agreed to by Congress until 1925. Many of those receiving the bonus were told they had to wait until 1945. They wanted their money in 1932. If they had been protesting in 1945, when they were promised the money and the .gov still wouldn't pay then I wouldn't make the comparison. However, as it stood, they were very much like welfare leeches. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WWI vets were thinking "what good is a T-bill in 1945 when the SHTF now?" Nothing is ever set in stone in politics or government and the veterans wanted redress for their grievances. Of course, it's just so easy to pawn it all off to the commies and cheer it when destitute vets "get what's coming to them." Funny, if it were welfare recipients who were demanding their benefits early, I'd bet you would have a different view. Veterans earned it, welfare recipients are just leeches. Try a valid comparison. I am a vet, and if I was promised something in 20 years, and then start demanding it in 10, it would make me little better than a welfare recipient. Someone who actually makes a contribution has a valid claim to the services of government, moreso if the service is a benefit of that contribution. But then, I guess vets who served prior to the creation of a federal VA hospital/care system shouldn't have been able to use it, eh? ETA: Vets that served prior to education benefits, etc. shouldn't be eligible for those either right? |
|
I believe Congress promised veterans a bonus pension in the 1920's to be paid out in 1945, it was to be a kind of Federal pension. Since vets were losing their homes, farms and businesses Everyone thought it reasonable to ask the Government for the money or at least an advance. Wright Patman a senator from Texas lead a fight to raise the money for the vets via a bond issue. Andrew Mellon among others opposed this measure in the name of balancing the budget. In the spring of 1932 vets started heading to Washington to promote the idea, and by the summer there were around 20,000 vets camped out in Anacostia Flats. Hoover gets a black eye for his treatment of these people, but in the early stages he provided them with food clothing and tents, but in the end he wanted to deal with them on his terms but they refused to behave as refugees, people he was used to dealing with, they refused to give ground and even threatened lawmakers the rest is history. McArthur wasn't the only one turning them out of their camps, Eisenhower and Patton were also there setting the camps on fire they all felt there was "revolution" in the air so felt justified in doing what they did. I could see this very same thing happening again probably with more violence this time around.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WWI vets were thinking "what good is a T-bill in 1945 when the SHTF now?" Nothing is ever set in stone in politics or government and the veterans wanted redress for their grievances. Of course, it's just so easy to pawn it all off to the commies and cheer it when destitute vets "get what's coming to them." Funny, if it were welfare recipients who were demanding their benefits early, I'd bet you would have a different view. Veterans earned it, welfare recipients are just leeches. Try a valid comparison. I am a vet, and if I was promised something in 20 years, and then start demanding it in 10, it would make me little better than a welfare recipient. Someone who actually makes a contribution has a valid claim to the services of government, moreso if the service is a benefit of that contribution. But then, I guess vets who served prior to the creation of a federal VA hospital/care system shouldn't have been able to use it, eh? That depends on the rules established for its creation. As a vet I get what was the law of the land at the time I served. If Congress votes to give me more, I get it, but I am not entitled to anything more than may original contract and the laws that covered it granted. Did you know that if a Reservist or Guardsman deplys to Afghanistan and returns now, they get only 5 years of VA care? VA care is only extended past that for person with service connected illness or injury. Being a vet doesn't entitle me or anyone else to anything more than what my contract and the laws governing it at the time provide. ETA: Vets that served prior to education benefits, etc. shouldn't be eligible for those either right? [/quote] I am not eligible for the new post 9/11 GI bill, despite having deployed post 9/11, because I used my much, much smaller reserve GI Bill benefits in the 90's. Despite the fact that if I was eligible for the new one it would be $50,000+ in educational benefits, I am not going to run around demanding I get the new one. I wasn't promised it when I enlisted, the rules now are what they are. The money was never promised at the time they served, only later, and it was promised to be paid in 1945. They were demanding it before they were owed. I can retire from the USAR in 2013. If I do, I won't see a dime of retirement money until 2035. I am not going to go camp out on the front lawn of the White House demanding my money now, I knew that was the rule when I signed up. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WWI vets were thinking "what good is a T-bill in 1945 when the SHTF now?" Nothing is ever set in stone in politics or government and the veterans wanted redress for their grievances. Of course, it's just so easy to pawn it all off to the commies and cheer it when destitute vets "get what's coming to them." Funny, if it were welfare recipients who were demanding their benefits early, I'd bet you would have a different view. Veterans earned it, welfare recipients are just leeches. Try a valid comparison. I am a vet, and if I was promised something in 20 years, and then start demanding it in 10, it would make me little better than a welfare recipient. Someone who actually makes a contribution has a valid claim to the services of government, moreso if the service is a benefit of that contribution. But then, I guess vets who served prior to the creation of a federal VA hospital/care system shouldn't have been able to use it, eh? That depends on the rules established for its creation. As a vet I get what was the law of the land at the time I served. If Congress votes to give me more, I get it, but I am not entitled to anything more than may original contract and teh alws that covered it granted. Did you know that if a Reservist or Guardsman deplys to Afghanistan and returns now, they get only 5 years of VA care? VA care is only extended past that for person with service connected illness or injury. Being a vet doesn't entitle me or anyone else to anything more than what my contract and the laws governing it at the time provide. ETA: Vets that served prior to education benefits, etc. shouldn't be eligible for those either right? I am not eligible for the new GI bill, because I used my much, much smaller resrve GI Bill benefits in the 90's. Despite the fact that if I was eligible for the new one it would be $50,000+ in educational benefits, I am not going to run around demanding I get the new one. I wasn't promised it when I enlisted, the rules now are waht they are. The money was never promised at the time they served, only later, and it was promised to be paid in 1945. They were demanding it before they were owed. I can retire from the USAR in 2013. If I do, I won't see a dime of retirement money until 2035. I am not going to go camp out on the front lawn of the White House demanding my money now, I knew that was the rule when I signed up.[/quote] I think you missed my point. If service member A was prior service when congress changed the law to entitle them to benefit X, does service member A have any actual claim to benefit X? Using the education example, prior to some date(date Y) there was no education benefit and after that date service members became eligible for education benefits. Congress may have made some prior service members retroactively eligible for that benefit. Stating that the people who served prior to date Y are ineligible have no claim to the benefit, in spite of the portion of law* stating otherwise is ridiculous. I don't think the bonus army had a legitimate claim to full value at that time. I do believe they had a claim to whatever the accrued value was and that it should have been issued without reservation or delay to any of them that wanted it. What some of you seem to be suggesting is that they had no claim to any of it at all, at any time, regardless of any act of congress stating otherwise. *example only, I have no idea if any prior service member was retroactively eligible for such a benefit |
|
Quoted:
I think you missed my point. If service member A was prior service when congress changed the law to entitle them to benefit X, does service member A have any actual claim to benefit X? There is no yes or no answer to that. It all depends on how the law is worded. Post 9/11 GI Bill is a good example. Those serving before 9/11 do not get the program, and many of us serving after do not. Using the education example, prior to some date(date Y) there was no education benefit and after that date service members became eligible for education benefits. Congress may have made some prior service members retroactively eligible for that benefit. Stating that the people who served prior to date Y are ineligible have no claim to the benefit, in spite of the portion of law* stating otherwise is ridiculous.
I don't think the bonus army had a legitimate claim to full value at that time. I do believe they had a claim to whatever the accrued value was and that it should have been issued without reservation or delay to any of them that wanted it. What some of you seem to be suggesting is that they had no claim to any of it at all, at any time, regardless of any act of congress stating otherwise. *example only, I have no idea if any prior service member was retroactively eligible for such a benefit There was no "accrued value" there was no starting value or any of that. They had not invested their money to be paid at a later date. They simply said "In 1945 you will get X". If I have a contract that says in 20 years I will get $100 from you, I have no legal claim to demand I get $50 in 10 years. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think you missed my point. If service member A was prior service when congress changed the law to entitle them to benefit X, does service member A have any actual claim to benefit X? There is no yes or no answer to that. It all depends on how the law is worded. Post 9/11 GI Bill is a good example. Those serving before 9/11 do not get the program, and many of us serving after do not. Using the education example, prior to some date(date Y) there was no education benefit and after that date service members became eligible for education benefits. Congress may have made some prior service members retroactively eligible for that benefit. Stating that the people who served prior to date Y are ineligible have no claim to the benefit, in spite of the portion of law* stating otherwise is ridiculous.
I don't think the bonus army had a legitimate claim to full value at that time. I do believe they had a claim to whatever the accrued value was and that it should have been issued without reservation or delay to any of them that wanted it. What some of you seem to be suggesting is that they had no claim to any of it at all, at any time, regardless of any act of congress stating otherwise. *example only, I have no idea if any prior service member was retroactively eligible for such a benefit There was no "accrued value" there was no starting value or any of that. They had not invested their money to be paid at a later date. They simply said "In 1945 you will get X". If I have a contract that says in 20 years I will get $100 from you, I have no legal claim to demand I get $50 in 10 years. From some searching, it appears that "small amounts" were actually paid out immediately while other, larger amounts(over $1500 IIRC) were deferred until 1945. |
|
Quoted: participation in the suppression of the bonus army is imo Patton's most shameful moment, worse than the field hospital slapping incedent. They had assembled peaceably to demand that the government owed them for their service, amd the government calls out the cavalry to ride them down. The government didn't 'owe them' anythiing in 1930. The bonus was owed in 1945. |