that seams backwards to me. a Vetren should get a better savings than some one who just got old.
nothing against us old people, but to me some one who signed that blank cheque to their country to give us the quality of life we have, deserves a little more in my opinion. I see the pass is free for some millitary, but why no discount on camping?
Nothing to do with what's right (and you are absolutely correct).
Politicians know: There are more old folks than Veterans and old folks vote. At the same time, old folks have more time to visit national parks because they are retired, so they would raise a bigger stink if it was taken away.
thats so true, but I don't know a older person that would compain if veterans got the discount on camping also, as a lot are veterans. so I guess it almost goes hand in hand, when a veteran becomes a senior he gets the reduced rate camping and he doesnt have to pay for his pass so he is getting a better deal than a normal senior. I am just used to a lot of veterans being under 65 now I guess.
No one getting free stuff complains. I don't qualify for either option and I wouldn't complain if i got some free stuff.
It was posed as one or the other option in which case, I would argue morally, it should be the vets getting the benefit but with WWII vets largely having aged out and even VietNam vets quickly aging out (trying to politely say they are dying of old age.... but both groups qualify for the old age benefits anyway), the newer generations have much smaller vet populations, so not much political benefit to giving those benefits.
giving vets benifits has nothing to do with political benifits, its just giving some one a brake for what they did for their country. I would argue that the new generation of vets is almost as big, just a little more invisible.
