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."
&gt;But that's basically what the military is. One big jobs program    The military is one of those peculiar government expenses where, under ideal circumstances (peace), is a waste of societal resources, but in the worse case scenario (being attacked by a foreign power), is an absolute necessity.  The US military in particular, is well known for having more spent on it than all of our closest economic competitors combined, albeit with reports that it might not be spent very efficiently. It could be reduced quite a lot without endangering US territorial safety at all, although I'm sure a few well-connected arms manufacturers would complain.  Even aside from that, however, I was thinking mainly about the sheer amount of money involved in Quantitative Easing (QE). The big banks received at least hundreds of billions, if not trillions, multiple times. But without increasing economic demand, there is no reason for existing businesses to look for loans, so all that money didn't have anywhere to go except for the increasingly complex financial games that the banks play with each other.  Imagine if all that money had simply been used to hire people to work. That's economic stimulus right at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Those people are much more likely to spend on real things that will create an economic demand. "Economist [Mark Weisbrot](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/27/china-imf-economy-2016),  &gt; It is true that the ""market rate"" measure is better for some comparisons. **But one important place where the PPP measure is more relevant is in military spending.** The cost of producing a military plane and training a pilot in China is much lower than in the United States.   &gt; Washington's current policy is to maintain military supremacy in Asia, but an arms race with China could make the cold war look cheap by comparison. The Soviet Union's economy was just a quarter of United States' economy when we had that arms race. If the US were to have a serious arms race with China, we could forget about Medicare, social security and most of what our federal government spends money on." Military Members who are assigned to locations where dependents are not allowed to travel at government expense (such as basic training, and some unaccompanied overseas assignments) can live in the barracks for free, and still continue to receive the housing allowance, in order to provide a household for their family members. That's nice and this perspective frankly what I'd expect from an economist, but as a political scientist, I know that military power is a function of platform capability even more than cost effectiveness.  China is several generations behind on many of its combat platforms which means theyll just die in greater numbers.  Equating Chinese military capability to American on the basis of GDP-PPP is just stupid.  Or more specifically, is misses how we measure power.  The day they've got a dozen fully operational carrier battle groups get back to me. If a separation agreement is already entered into, this will be family law legislation in Australia that any agreement made between two former partners must be partners are not coerced into entering unfair agreements and also to ensure one partner. For more details visit our site lawyerslegalformsanddocuments.com The federal government is already much smaller than it has been at any time since World War II, while our population has drastically increased. We've also already cut funding to many government programs and departments (except the military and related departments).  I'm not sure we can feasibly _make_ many more cuts. I think it would be worth it to create a plan to streamline and make governmental departments more efficient, though. 1. One United States Air Force (USAF) B-2 Spirit stealth bomber over Colorado, United States of America (USA), on 9 May 2012: [4288 x 2848 pixels](http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-200905-UnitedStatesAirForce-120509-F-VV395-106-clouds-B-2-Spirit-stealth-bomber-Colorado-20120509-huge.jpg)      Source + More High-Resolution Photos: #54 at http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200905.htm  2. Two USAF B-2 Spirit stealth bombers over Kansas, USA, on 9 September 2011: [3502 x 2110 pixels](http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-200905-UnitedStatesAirForce-110909-F-QH266-265-clouds-two-B-2-Spirit-stealth-bombers-Kansas-20110909-huge.jpg)      Source: #50 at http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200905.htm  3.  One U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bomber leading U.S. fighter jets as they fly over the USS Nimitz (CVN 68), USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), and USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) carrier strike groups on 14 August 2007 during Exercise Valiant Shield 2007 in the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of Territory of Guam, USA: [3227 x 1863 pixels](http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-20060917-UnitedStatesNavy-070814-N-6009S-001-fighter-jets-B-52-Stratofortress-aircraft-carrier-strike-groups-Pacific-Ocean-Guam-20070814-large.jpg)      Source: #32 at http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20060917.htm  4. A transonic U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bomber in Southwest Asia on 16 January 2004: http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20041216.htm and http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20041217.htm      Source: http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-The-Spectacular-Clouds-of-the-Transonic-Flight-Regime.htm  5. Three United States Air Force long-range, strategic, heavy bombers -- B-52 Stratofortress, B-1B Lancer, B-2 Spirit -- over Guam, USA, on 17 August 2016: [3000 x 1554 pixels](https://media.defense.gov/2016/Aug/17/2001607062/-1/-1/0/160817-F-UA699-357.JPG)      Source: http://www.pacaf.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/916815/b-52-b-1-b-2s-participate-in-first-integrated-bomber-operation-in-uspacom-aor/ St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia March 23, 1775.  MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.  Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.  I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!  They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.  It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!  This speech is the best response I can give.