Military Separation
It's not usually a good idea to buy a house as an investment. Buy a house because you want the house, not for an investment. Your money will make more money invested somewhere other than a house. Additionally, based on talking about renting rooms to pay the mortgage and the GI bill, I assume you are planning on going to school and not working? I am not that familiar with VA loans, but I imagine they will require you show some form of income before they are willing to give you a loan. 14% returns over the long run are very good, but last year the market was up almost 30%, if you were only at 14% for last year you left quite a bit on the table. I would advise against  individual stocks for investments except as a hobby. Put the majority of your investments into ETF's/low fee mutual funds and keep a smaller amount that you can afford to lose in stocks. "Welcome to Money.SE, and thank you for your service.  In general, buying a house is wise if (a) the overall cost of ownership is less than the ongoing cost to rent in the area, and (b) you plan to stay in that area for some time, usually 7+ years.  The VA loan is a unique opportunity and I'd recommend you make the most of it. In my area, I've seen bank owned properties that had an ""owner occupied"" restriction. 3 family homes that were beautiful, and when the numbers were scrubbed, the owner would see enough rent on two units to pay the mortgage, taxes, and still have money for maintenance. Each situation is unique, but some ""too good to be true"" deals are still out there."
Then the USA can respond by pulling troops out of these countries and NATO. Think of all the carbon we will save not sending all those planes and tanks and people in other countries. They can spend some of their budgets on protection then, maybe the French can make a green Jet to defend their country. Military Real Estate is your source for relocation information, rental information and home purchase information for properties located around the many military bases nationwide. Our partners have realtors and property managers with experience working directly with military members, as well as expertise in the VA loan process. I was thinking something similar but that he is trying to fish for 'the best deal' by 'walking away'....or he wants show his base he was very conflicted and not totally roll over on them.  It did seem odd that only every news outlet reported inside sources say he was pulling out and he would announce his decision in a couple days. In Virginia, there are lot of Military Homes. We can help for those people which are looking the Military Rental Homes for any location in U.S. Government can provide the various facilities such as schools, Colleges, hospitals, wandering etc. In the Virginia, all the military homes owners are military man. They have very strict rules and regulations. You're reading what you want, not what I wrote. I didn't say we should send those 2,000,000 people home. I said there is no reason to **increase** spending on the military. For 2018, the proposal is to spend $10 billion on developing and building new planes, while only $300 million is for pay raises and new recruits. If you're telling me that $10 billion in building aircraft (high skilled labor jobs) will help the same number of people as putting $10 billion towards, say, building domestic *infrastructure* (low-skilled labor jobs), you're out of your mind. "You're not the tender soul I was replying to, who goes looking for things to be offended by. But since you apparently recently read an article which makes you an expert..  Clearly military screening is far from perfect.  The suicide rate for all members is higher than average.  Add transgender in and the likelyhood of an incident increases disproportionately.  And that's an interesting spin: it's barring transgenders from the military that makes them suicidal, not the other way around. Got it.   Now factor in the costs of ""sensitivity training"", reassignment surgeries, and the inevitable lawsuits and it's a recipe for disaster." "&gt;Clearly military screening is far from perfect.  The suicide rate for all members is higher than average.   You make a jump in logic here which is not falsifiable that it is screening practices which lead to higher suicide rates.   &gt;Add transgender in and the likelyhood of a n incident increases disproportionately.  Theres really no ecidence to support this argument as far as I am aware. Please show me how transgender military members have a higher rate of suicide than the general pop of military members.  &gt;And that's an interesting spin: it's barring transgenders from the military that makes them suicidal, not the other way around. Got it.  Yea, turns out discriminating against people at an institutional level increases their rates of suicide. I find it hard to believe youre surprised by this. Being socially ostracized is a huge risk factor for suicide and depression.    &gt;Now factor in the costs of ""sensitivity training"", reassignment surgeries, and the inevitable lawsuits and it's a recipe for disaster.    It hasnt been an issue at all so far. Why would it start now? Youre using the same arguments people have used every time civil rights are increased, every time theyre wrong. Theyre wrong now." By numbers I assume you mean monetary amounts... the article doesn't define the separation that way...  &gt;In one of these countries live members of what Temin calls the “FTE sector” (named for finance, technology, and electronics, the industries which largely support its growth). These are the 20 percent of Americans who enjoy college educations, have good jobs, and sleep soundly knowing that they have not only enough money to meet life’s challenges, but also social networks to bolster their success. The DoD wants to cut some of those bases, it's the people in Washington who don't want this to happen. These bases bring in money to the communities of which they are a part of, even if they're unnecessary and sometimes a hindrance when thinking in terms of military strategy. So the legislative branch blocks the closures that the DoD want because if these bases did close, it'll hurt the communities within their districts, thus hurting their chances of re-election. "Not true. The language used in the Navy &amp; Army clauses are different. There is a duty to ""maintain"" the Navy and ""support"" the armies. There is no such mandate in the postal clause. Nor can the act of establishing be read as implying maintenance, because the Constitution specifically includes those things for the Army and Navy, suggesting it was not implied.   You can establish something and then privatize it. Government-chartered companies were common at the time, so it's not like the idea didn't occur to them.   Strictly speaking, I don't see any reason that Congress couldn't also privatize the army and navy, assuming that ""maintain"" and ""support"" don't imply direct congressional control. But that's a harder argument, compared to this much easier distinction in the case of the post office." I work at a manufacturing facility near Savannah, GA.  When it was finalized that we would shut down at the end of the week, the upper management was out a day early.  They all drove to the airport and flew out of here on Thursday.  This left the employees and supervisors (and a few area managers) to left everyone navigate the confusing and uncertain shut down and evacuation process.    I lost all of the respect I had for management. Who do you think the Missile defense system is supposed to protect? South Korea. You would think they would help flip the bill instead of American tax payers. I would be ok if we drew our entire military presence from SK. The number of government departments involved in anything the US (or any government) does is bewildering, but the invasion of Iraq was, by definition, a military venture intended to overthrow their leader and change the regime. The exit strategy was to attempt nation building to achieve stability. The US military acts for the US government, as do other departments and to muddle the question by listing departments is to miss the point – which is privatization of government functions, be they military or just involved in military ventures.  If the contractors weren’t really required but were hired anyway….I don’t know how that’s defended.   The fact remains: *security functions were outsourced*. That doing so is efficient or not is a good debate, but another debate. You're just blatantly wrong. There are literally hundreds of thousands of combat veterans and police officers in the US vastly more qualified than you. Beyond that, your scenario requires an instantaneous dissolution of society which is an absurd notion.   Your little dream scenario is just a childish fantasy. It's not rooted in reality so stop pretending it is so that you can publicly masturbate to the idea of trying to rip off your betters. What would you call an overseas  military venture in which the military was NOT a tool of the government?  Such other departments as were present in Iraq to do whatever they do were there because the military were there first, and as a means for the military to get out. To make it sound as though they’d have been there anyway and the military issue was a mere coincidence is absurd.  I’d limit it to say it’s the military which is mostly wasteful (I’m not among those who don’t believe government can ever do anything right). But whether it’s measured in manpower or dollars, the fact remains that security functions are being outsourced. Is there any reason to think this will not continue?  Or increase?