Proponents argue that the proposal can be funded using the net gains from reduced military operations overseas. Opponents (especially conservatists) are having none of this; they view this as yet another error in the Obama leadership and are of a strong hold against further increases in government spending in what they term as ‘largesse’.
The first article is an extract from the Washington Times dated February 6, 2012 uses a third person reporting to demystify the Liberals’ notion that a military career is a civilian’s last option suited for the uneducated and impoverished. It claims that veterans are better educated compared to their peers. Therefore, the VJC initiative is not a charitable endeavor but a deliberate government policy aimed at utilizing skills within its veteran population towards actively building the local economy and reducing government recurrent welfare expenditure on the group. In this regard, the author employs a bias by describing the policy as “good news” and limiting this benefit to those who received honorable discharges from the service. The arguments within the article are primarily structured around the unemployment levels prevalent within the group.
The second article primarily highlights how the government proposes to utilize savings from the cessation of overseas wars between refunding budgetary deficits and the VJC project. The article’s excessive quoting of the president attempts to provide validity to the policy itself. However, there is a bias in that the proposal targets veterans who served after the 9/11 terror attacks only. Similar to the previous article, the objects of the policy is structured around curbing the 9.1% unemployment rate that is way above the national unemployment rate of 8.3%.
The third article is a criticism of an article by the pro-conservatist media, Washington times, and a section of