If it is harmful, why does lacking veteran status or other criteria make it less harmful and thus less infringing?
I read it as "we're targeting specific scams aimed at veterans and others aimed at children" and my first thought was areas of the insurance industry selling "coverage" that doesn't cover.
Those scams aren't targeting the general population to begin with.
And there’s the pragmatic way of thinking about it, which says “these concerns were raised by advocates for this group based on past experiences where this group saw abuse, and the conversation was never elevated beyond protecting this previously-victimized group from future abuse”
Thats not to defend what is probably bureaucratic myopia, just to say the reasons are more likely banal than strategic.
Granted I went to basic training over two decades ago. Maybe the Post 9/11 GI Bill is different? But I doubt it. What I've heard from fellow veterans is it's better in so many ways. Apparently I'm even eligible for a year of its use even though I depleted my original GI Bill (with kicker).
The most difficult part for most people is staying in school, which is made significantly easier by not having to pay for it.
Which part of capitalism causes the government to scam the state funded military. There doesn't appear to be any private ownership of capital involved at all.
The US made a very strong go, initially, at not doing that, with a cadre-style Army reliant on militia mobilization for significant action (and a somewhat similar situation for internal security).
The whole security forces as a separate caste with interests divorced from the population thing was something the founders were aware of and concerned about.
- Guaranteed housing—including for your spouse and kids.
- Healthcare for same.
- Free college education.
The pay sucks, but the benefits are pretty damn good. I do think universal healthcare and free public university would take a big bite out of military recruitment rates.
slaves aren't paid
Not trying to straw-man you but it seems that your point is that because it is possible to skirt US anti-discrimination laws by importing from overseas, the US should have no anti-discrimination laws?
That is not a good point. Would you please clarify if there is something I missed?
Yes, I agree, anti-discrimination shouldn't stop at the border.
That's why back in the day sucked.
There's no secret to it.
If you're just not down with annoting vets with special treatment, that's fine and I think I'm with you, but your rehetorical question evaporates when you accept that politics is real and done in the open.
At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? I can't even think of a particular industry that has trended towards less government involvement. I suppose you could make the case that modern Republicans are relatively focused on "non-interference", but that's certainly not new (Reagan) and it's certainly not a general American political trend.
Really curious what you mean by this, because the way I'm reading this there is no basis in reality.
Non-interference in business is the prevailing current in the US, at the federal level, since its founding. Interference needs to be constitutionally justified, and (historically) needs to not be better applied by more local jurisdictions.
This is why the past shows has comparitively lax regulation for long.
You're right that this is a more pressed issue lately and that we can see a local relative current towards regulation tempers that prevailing one, but in net its actually still relatively non-interfering compared to what you see in peer nations.
Leaning on the metaphor: The prevailing Atlantic current mostly goes north up the US coast, but you can still find local currents in all directions amidst that prevailing flow.
1930-1970.
And that's all the history homework I'm going to do.
In a specific and literal 'number of regulations, period' way, you're right. But in a more general sense involving the FTC, prior to 1978 the economy was significantly more regulated.
So there may be more restrictions on the product to qualify as natural or organic, for example, but there are less restrictions on the ability of the company that makes the product to engage in non-competitive behavior. Banking is a good example - there are more restrictions and requirements for disclosure, but before the 90's, banks were not allowed to have branches in multiple states. Additionally, now you have a number of tech companies behaving like banks but acting in a significantly less regulated way that wasn't possible twenty-five years ago. From a 'whole economy' perspective, the required reserve balance reductions in the 90's resulted in less ability for the federal govt to control the economy without major shocks.
The government has less control over the economy today than it has had in decades, and since the late 70's a failure of antitrust enforcement and changes in financial rules have resulted in market concentration in every major market to a degree that they have all become oligopolies.
ADA compliance especially does not give the disabled an advantage over others. It is an attempt to level things and an acknowledgment that assistance is necessary for some people to enter the workplace as otherwise they would not physically be able to do so. Most of the other protected classes are based on the Constitution - not including pregnant women and women that may become pregnant, as a sub-class, who are classically discriminated against in the workplace and elsewhere and forced out of their jobs on a regular basis.
So when someone, you in this instance, complains about "not being worth protecting" in comparison to a group that is routinely disadvantaged or innately vulnerable, it creates the appearance in people listening or reading their words that they are extremely naive and/or a cruel, mean person. This perception is something a person who is neither of those things should consider before speaking or posting about subjects like this one.
Let's see where this country is when those like me rightfully sit and do nothing to defend it. There is a cost for acting like certain citizens matter more than others.
People who are upset that handicapped and vulnerable people get help or are protected by the government don't usually stand up and defend anything at all, in my experience. So no real change there.
People want to make a problem because I dared to suggest our country protect all of its people. There's nothing morally wrong with my stance. I'm not bitching and moaning at a parking space or a ramp. I'm bitching about the fact my country will never act to protect me, because I don't fit the intersectional chart.
Identity-based protection is discrimination. Make excuses all you want but I'll abandon any group that won't offer me equal protection.
Your point really seems to be 'why doesn't the government give me exactly the same thing they give the less fortunate.' The answer is, you don't need it to put yourself in a position to compete. They do.