Why do you suppose that most, if not all, people employed by the military receive general praise whereas a lot of other public employees do not?

For instance, an average Boatswain's Mate provides little in the way of value to the American people as a whole most of the time. One of his typical duties at sea is painting the hull of a ship. He is one small piece in the machine that is the U.S. Navy (which admittedly preserves trade and commerce around the world).

The average reserve Boatswain's Mate provides even less value to the American people. One weekend a month he sits on his ass at a reserve center reading about what his duties are in the event he gets activated.

When these men walk into a gas station in their uniform, they can be met by a lot of folks who thank them for their service.

However, if these same folks were to meet an IRS agent, who collects revenue that the treasury then transfers to those Boatswain's mates as compensation for their service, it seems unlikely that the IRS agent would be showered with praise for their service.

The same goes for many other public employees. They are called "bureaucrats" as if it were a pejorative. Why do you suppose this is the case?

Not all servicemen are created equal.

However, unlike the IRS man or public servant, they all have a chance to get sent somewhere and get shot at because a public servant sent them.

People who are in the service, while providing little "value", risk their lives to protect our freedom for very little pay. Maybe not every day but they stand ready when needed.

BoatShoes;1374388 wrote:Why do you suppose that most, if not all, people employed by the military receive general praise whereas a lot of other public employees do not?

Because in general, those in the military add value, often at the risk of life. The average government bureaucrat is a net "taker" from society. Of course there are anecdotal examples of the opposite, but they are the exceptions.

There are a couple of reasons. First of all, the military exists to defend this country from attack, and that's what many of the soldiers believe they are doing. They are risking their lives for us every day, even if they don't understand that isn't really what most of them are doing. They deserve praise for that.

Second, the state run media propagandizes the ignorant public to deify the government's empire builders.

As for other bureaucrats, simply a waste of our stolen money. There is no basis in the law for most of their departments to even exist let alone for them to have jobs on our dime. IRS agents should be imprisoned, not praised.

I do believe you are ahead of your time putting out the next media narrative though. The government will soon enough see the need to instruct their sheep to love their IRS agents and all government employed leeches.

queencitybuckeye;1374396 wrote:Because in general, those in the military add value, often at the risk of life. The average government bureaucrat is a net "taker" from society. Of course there are anecdoatal examples of the opposite, but they are the exceptions.

I think this is the best summation of it.

I saw an article the other day, I'll try and find it, that listed Ohio as one of, I think, 7 state where the public sector + those on welfare is equal to or greater than the private sector. Meaning there are as many or more takers as there are makers in the state. Ohio was a 1:1 ratio so it was the lowest on the list, but still ridiculous.

queencitybuckeye;1374396 wrote:Because in general, those in the military add value, often at the risk of life. The average government bureaucrat is a net "taker" from society. Of course there are anecdoatal examples of the opposite, but they are the exceptions.

So, what about someone that is say from DHS, or State, or a civilian in the DOD, are that as well?
Or is it just agencies that are not involved in the national security of the U.S.?

It is a fair question honestly.
Just as much praise should be given to the analyst who shifts through all information to pass to the solider so they are not ambushed or put in harm's way.
Or, to the civilian DOD person who is working on a study to help eliminate IEDs.
Or, to an Energy person who is working to extend the life of one of the country's nuclear weapons at one of the National Labs of Y-12.
Or to the intelligence analyst that does nothing put analyze photos to try and match faces to known terrorists.

queencitybuckeye;1374396 wrote:Because in general, those in the military add value, often at the risk of life. The average government bureaucrat is a net "taker" from society. Of course there are anecdoatal examples of the opposite, but they are the exceptions.

What makes you think that a lot, if not most, military men and women are not "net takers" adding/producing little value?

A person might argue that a lot of service members are not in harm's way and do not really provide much in the way of "defending" America. One might also argue that even those risking their lives in say, Afghanistan, are providing little tangible benefit to America too.

ptown_trojans_1;1374401 wrote:So, what about someone that is say from DHS, or State, or a civilian in the DOD, are that as well?
Or is it just agencies that are not involved in the national security of the U.S.?

It is a fair question honestly.
Just as much praise should be given to the analyst who shifts through all information to pass to the solider so they are not ambushed or put in harm's way.
Or, to the civilian DOD person who is working on a study to help eliminate IEDs.
Or, to an Energy person who is working to extend the life of one of the country's nuclear weapons at one of the National Labs of Y-12.
Or to the intelligence analyst that does nothing put analyze photos to try and match faces to known terrorists.

Short answer is putting one's life on the line does and should generate far more respect that the specifics of what one does. That is the true measure of having "skin in the game".

The ones who deserve the most praise are the ones who don't ask for any.

Out current leader and his comrades don't understand this concept. It's a result of the everybody gets a medal and everyone particulates progressive movement. They think nothing is accomplished if no one can accept the praise.

ptown_trojans_1;1374401 wrote:...

Just as much praise should be given to the analyst who shifts through all information to pass to the solider so they are not ambushed or put in harm's way.
...

When an individual is inspired to praise it's based on emotion as opposed to what is rationally or logically earned. To suggest the emotions of a person are to be a certain way is indicative of suggesting the non-recipient of praise didn't inspire the individual enough to garner praise.

You can tell someone all you want how they should feel but in the end it's for them to decide on their own.

queencitybuckeye;1374403 wrote:Short answer is putting one's life on the line does and should generate far more respect that the specifics of what one does. That is the true measure of having "skin in the game".

So, then what about CIA, NSA, State Department people that are in the field, but not in uniform?
To tie to Benghazi, the 4 that died, were non-military, so should they be held in less regard since they are not in uniform?

No one is saying the grunt does not deserve the ultimate praise, but the national security machine is more complex and involves many more moving parts than just the solider.

Cleveland Buck;1374398 wrote:There are a couple of reasons. First of all, the military exists to defend this country from attack, and that's what many of the soldiers believe they are doing. They are risking their lives for us every day, even if they don't understand that isn't really what most of them are doing. They deserve praise for that.

I think you could make the case that this is largely untrue for a large swath of service members. The average truck driver, moving goods for us in interstate commerce desiring a paycheck has more risk to his life than the average E-1 performing the duties of his rate desiring a paycheck.

Speaking anecdotally, I personally was certainly a net taker and never under a foreseeable risk of harm while on active duty and neither were any of my fellow servicemen in the greater Norfolk region.

BoatShoes;1374410 wrote:I think you could make the case that this is largely untrue for a large swath of service members. The average truck driver, moving goods for us in interstate commerce desiring a paycheck has more risk to his life than the average E-1 performing the duties of his rate desiring a paycheck.

Speaking anecdotally, I personally was certainly a net taker and never under a foreseeable risk of harm while on active duty and neither were any of my fellow servicemen in the greater Norfolk region.

But had you been ordered into a combat zone you would have gone, right?

Our public servants have to lie in order to attach themselves to the dangers out servicemen are put in. Remember Hillary claiming her helicopter came under attack. And just yesterday it was revealed Joe Biden wasn't golfing at the closest course 6 miles from a shooting let alone the .25 mile he claimed.

In short. Public servants at the national level are trash. And until the us military comes door to door collecting taxes they shouldn't be compared to IRS agents.

ptown_trojans_1;1374409 wrote:So, then what about CIA, NSA, State Department people that are in the field, but not in uniform?
To tie to Benghazi, the 4 that died, were non-military, so should they be held in less regard since they are not in uniform?

No one is saying the grunt does not deserve the ultimate praise, but the national security machine is more complex and involves many more moving parts than just the solider.

I agree with that, and I think the people who lost their lives in Benghazi have been recognized. But they don't have a uniform that makes them easily recognizable so until someone puts their picture on the news nobody knows who they are.

ptown_trojans_1;1374409 wrote:So, then what about CIA, NSA, State Department people that are in the field, but not in uniform?
To tie to Benghazi, the 4 that died, were non-military, so should they be held in less regard since they are not in uniform?

No one is saying the grunt does not deserve the ultimate praise, but the national security machine is more complex and involves many more moving parts than just the solider.

They deserve the same respect. OTOH, the "we risk YOUR life" analyst types do not. They're mostly worthless sheep that would piss down their leg at the notion of original thought.

FatHobbit;1374412 wrote:But had you been ordered into a combat zone you would have gone, right?

Sure but the point is all sailors in the uniform get the same unending praise...all the time....despite having never been in harms way.

I'm not saying its a bad thing.

However, a great lot of us were net "takers" and never putting our life "on the line" in defense of freedom, etc.

I guess maybe your point is...the fact that a person is in the service, shows that he/she by definition has shown a willingness to put themselves in harms way for the American people...and that is why they deserve praise...even if it's they case that they're ultimately a "net taker"/producer of little value for America/not in danger.

the same reason that even bench or practice squad players recieve a sb ring even if they dont get in the game. they are still part of the team and contribute to the success of said team. every part of the military is important whether or not your a cook or a janitor..someone has to do it. plus i give respect to anyone who goes through basic training/boot camp successfully.

BoatShoes;1374425 wrote:I guess maybe your point is...the fact that a person is in the service, shows that he/she by definition has shown a willingness to put themselves in harms way for the American people...and that is why they deserve praise...

That was my point.

BoatShoes;1374425 wrote:even if it's they case that they're ultimately a "net taker"/producer of little value for America/not in danger.

IMHO it's not about the value they produce but about their choosing to put themselves in a position where someone else can order them into harms way.

Every government employee is a net taker from society. That doesn't mean the military shouldn't be appreciated for what their real purpose is.

There's a greater chance of dying on your way to work than in a war. FACT.

I have to agree with BoatShoes on this one. I respect military people but I will never understand the over glorification of someone doing a job that they signed up for.

sleeper;1374459 wrote:...but I will never understand...

That is a very honest statement and I respect you for posting it.

Cleveland Buck;1374446 wrote:Every government employee is a net taker from society.

I'm sure there are more than a few government employees who provide value.

Hilarious thread, brought to you of course, by you-know-who.


Obviously, most in the military, at one point or another, are in position to be risking their lives for our sake. Most bureaucrats, on the other hand, risk nothing .....not even a fender bender, because when it snows 3" in D.C. they get a snow day, on us.

What we should be doing, in addition to praising the defenders of our freedom, is also praising those that risk their capital and where-with-all in the private sector, in order to generate returns on investments, provide jobs, and fork over taxes that pay for those defenders of our freedoms to be able to perform their duties. Those are the people we should be praising, in lieu of this recent liberal charade of building up government workers as somehow being our saviors.

Sometimes you just have to shake at your head at the idiocy being brought to us the radical left lately, to include propaganda like this thread starter.