I'm a vet. Sort of. I mean, I did my 4 years and am technically a part of the 1st Gulf War (I've got a ribbon for it!). But I'm also a poor vet. This was true when I came to this state, and will still be true when I leave.
Just after I got here I inquired as to what self-improvement programs the state might have for vets.
None.
"We don't have a problem attracting vets," said the voice that was supposed to help me.
But that shouldn't be the point. It's not about whether a state can attract vets or not. I would've been happier if they had things that didn't apply to me. My father, a vet of the Vietnam war and an Army retiree of 23 yrs, gets a few nice benefits that all vets of that length of service deserve. He doesn't get a free ride, but he manages to get groceries a little cheaper and some medical care. But that's the Army. I don't know what his state offers.
Texas is highly regarded amongst military types as the place to be ex-military. Texas, for all the flack I might give it in the future, rocks in this regard. I here that vets get land purchases cheaper there.
But Texas respects vets. They already have tons of vets, they don't have any problem attracting vets. They've got at least 3 military bases, and probably more, around which vets are likely to retire.
In this state getting a VA loan on your house is an automatic +1% to the loan.
I do not like it, Sam-I-Am.
Abonnieren
Kommentare zum Post (Atom)
1 Kommentar:
Yeah, but if there's any measure of being a vet, then I rate low on that scale.
I use my father as the basis, which might be unfair. He did 23 years in the Army, starting in the Vietnam War (he served 2 tours of that, I believe).
He slogged through rice paddies, saw people die, and still has shrapnel in him.
I hung out with a bunch of friends, got pissed at my supervisors, and wore a funny outfit.
I realize that, to the government, the only difference is time in service... but to me there are worlds of difference.
Kommentar veröffentlichen