PDA

View Full Version : congress may "cut" troop pay


zimv20
Aug 14, 2003, 10:07 PM
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN200910.DTL&type=printable


Military families reacted angrily Wednesday to news that pay for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan could be cut as soon as October.


At issue is a pay hike approved in April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances." It was approved by Congress in recognition of the dangers troops face in Afghanistan and Iraq, where service members are being killed at the rate of about one each day since major combat operations were declared over. It is due to expire next month unless renewed by Congress.

In trying to eliminate the extra pay, the Pentagon says it is costing the Defense Department $25 million a month.

Sayhey
Aug 14, 2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN200910.DTL&type=printable

I read this in the Chron today, and was struck by the priorities of the Defense Dept. Whatever one thinks of this war, surely the people on the line need to be treated better than this?

macphoria
Aug 14, 2003, 11:50 PM
That is ridiculous. These guys put their lives on the line, while people sitting behind the desk determine how much money they are worth. Those soldiers should get paid more, not less. These guys don't even know if they'll live to see the next day or the measly pay they get.

Pinto
Aug 15, 2003, 12:01 AM
Money given to soldiers just ends up[ with their families and goes out of the US Govt Military/industrial loop.

Money given to weapons manufacturers and Haliburton & Betchel etc ends up in the hands of the Washington elite and their mates.

Why would you give money away when you can give it back to yourself??

SPG
Aug 15, 2003, 12:31 AM
Support our troops...impeach bush.

macphoria
Aug 15, 2003, 12:42 AM
Our soldiers are watching their comrades die almost everyday in far away land. They need all the support they can get.

Desertrat
Aug 15, 2003, 06:58 AM
If we got rid of a few thousand surplus colonels and generals, that original pay raise could be made even larger.

We have more generals now than we had in WW II when the active military was some five million. Pardon me while I throw up.

'Rat

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 09:10 AM
Yeah, firefighters, police, EMT's, and soldiers don't need the extra money. More tax cuts for the upper class instead! Shows where our national priorities are. :rolleyes:

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 15, 2003, 11:50 AM
weren't absentee ballots from overseas soldiers a huge reason W got selected in 2000? maybe next year they will come back to haunt him.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 02:31 PM
I see in the morning paper that the White House has backed off this proposal after the outcry got so loud they couldn't help it.

mcrain
Aug 15, 2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
I see in the morning paper that the White House has backed off this proposal after the outcry got so loud they couldn't help it.

The hypocrisy is amazing. These are the same people who said Clinton ran the WH based on polls and public opinion!

Desertrat
Aug 15, 2003, 04:18 PM
No, Ambrose; exactly the opposite on the absentee GI ballots. A polling of overseas GIs indicated some 80% or more were Bush supporters.

If you go back and read some of Hackworth's online columns from 1998-2000 you'll see why. The Clinton years were really downers for troop morale.

'Rat

mcrain
Aug 15, 2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
No, Ambrose; exactly the opposite on the absentee GI ballots. A polling of overseas GIs indicated some 80% or more were Bush supporters.

If you go back and read some of Hackworth's online columns from 1998-2000 you'll see why. The Clinton years were really downers for troop morale.

'Rat

You might want to reread what he said. He was saying that the GI ballots favored Bush, but now that Bush is bending them over and sticking it to them, during the next election, that bias might change against him.

IJ Reilly
Aug 15, 2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
If you go back and read some of Hackworth's online columns from 1998-2000 you'll see why. The Clinton years were really downers for troop morale.

And of course morale has gone sky-high now. Why morale should have been down during the Clinton administration is a mystery to me anyway.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 15, 2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Rat
No, Ambrose; exactly the opposite on the absentee GI ballots. A polling of overseas GIs indicated some 80% or more were Bush supporters

wait isn't that what i said? soldiers ballots were a huge boost to Bush. that's what i meant anyway...:confused:

Desertrat
Aug 15, 2003, 08:07 PM
Oops! Mea culpa. I just flat misread it.

As to the morale during the Clinton years, it's a multi-faceted long story. The reason I suggested Hackworth's columns is that they frequently addressed the problem, so you shouldn't have to wade through multitudes of them to find some info.

Hackworth maintained many friendships at the "working man's level", and still does. This is also true for Brown and his staff at Soldier of Fortune magazine. (I, like many, find the ads [mostly aimed at "wannbes"] to be quite often repulsive--but the articles are among the most knowledgeably written that you can find.)

A soldier generally doesn't object to being sent off to fight nearly so much as he objects to getting the feeling of being let down. Our present logistics problems in Iraq are indeed causing some justifiable disgruntlement. Water, mail, quality of food. Spare parts for the equipment, I hear. I'm told that the type of sand in the Iraqi desert is more abrasive than what you find in our deserts, here. Ergo, problems with Abrams and Humvees, etc.

Congress and Pentagoners are beginning to find out that too-frequent callups of the Reserves will create problems, as well. Some units are in a third or fourth callup in as many years, I gather. Going off to war isn't as bad as being called up over and over and over...Disrupts the family.

'Rat

pseudobrit
Aug 16, 2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Going off to war isn't as bad as being called up over and over and over...Disrupts the family.

So does not being paid to be the target in live-fire practice for Iraqi insurgents.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 17, 2003, 12:29 PM
Rat - phew. it's good to know i'm not the one going crazy. :D ;) :D

Desertrat
Aug 17, 2003, 05:42 PM
My father was in WW II, and I was in the Army from 1/54-5/58. My son decided on the USAF after highshool, doing eleven years until just after Desert Storm. I figure I've got some understanding of military stuff.

This country, generally, has done better by its enlisted men than most other countries. That doesn't mean, of course, that it's done as well as it should have.

We have dramatically downsized the active forces since the Vietnam war; it accelerated during the Clinton years. More of our military actions rely on the Guard and the Reserves. From a bean-counter standpoint it's more effective, as in "cost effective". From a morale standpoint, it's counterproductive.

Morale and a readily understandable "world"* are more important to the enlisted guys than the hazards of being in the service. This might not be a problem for a reservist who's called up once every several years--but it clobbers morale when it's a case of merely some number of months.

Some WW II vets were called back for Korea. Fewer from the Korean days were called up for Vietnam. Even fewer from Vietnam were involved in later actions. Thus for most of our military personnel, combat was a one-time deal. Commonly, a year of one's life for those who saw action.

The way we are now using the Guard and the Reserves, IMO it's too repetitive. Once is rough enough.

And the idea of scaling back a promised pay raise? Just another broken promise.

'Rat

*"world"--the broad structure of a soldier's daily surroundings and his conditions of employment. Dependable and reliable are two important words.

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 19, 2003, 07:01 AM
And remeber, these are the same people who say you dont support our troops if you still eat "French Fries".......

and you voted for them. yoink! suckahs!

Desertrat
Aug 19, 2003, 07:41 AM
Interesting, TK. IIRC, Bush was early and up front after 9/11 about avoiding bigotry against Moslems in general. He's done some head-shaking about the French politics, but his speech has been pretty mild.

So for whom were the "no French Fry" votes?

'Rat

mactastic
Aug 19, 2003, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Interesting, TK. IIRC, Bush was early and up front after 9/11 about avoiding bigotry against Moslems in general. He's done some head-shaking about the French politics, but his speech has been pretty mild.

So for whom were the "no French Fry" votes?

'Rat

I believe it's spelled Muslim, and there were many conservative pols, and a few liberal ones, out there who made political hay bashing the French. You do remember the whole thing with Freedom Fries, Freedom Toast, Freedom Kissing, etc... don't you?

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 19, 2003, 09:43 AM
Of course Bush doesnt hate all muslims. He LOVES Saudi Arabia.

Funny how al Quedia(sp) and osama are Saudi... And we are wasting our time and money in Iraq just to prove that we cant tell Muslims apart. Guess he was confident that it was the "big" one he could win before the 2004 election.

If you say one thing and do another, dont expect me sit back and let you keep spoon feeding me your cowpies. However, you can line up for seconds if you want...

However, I honestly dont think this is a Bush legislation so It isnt really appropriate to bring him into the disscussion. Number one, Bush is a spoiled brat who obviously has no clue about fiscal responsiblity, and two.. i do belive that in his own way, Bush does sincerely support our soilders. While i dont agree with the way he goes about it, I will give him that one. As well as "Bush: no *****" -Bill Maher (he said i could quote it). But i would give him *real* credit on it if he gave them all of the money we dont have instead of his corperate criminal friends.

Desertrat
Aug 19, 2003, 10:52 AM
Sure, I remember all the anti-French stuff. It's a bit irksome to equate "Bush" with "all those who..." Nothing to do with anyone's like or dislike of Dubya, so much as using a rifle instead of a shotgun.

Correct me if I'm wrong about my undertanding of translating Arabic into English: I've read that it's to a great degree phonetic. That is, "Al Qaida" or "Al Quaida" or "Al Quaeda" are acceptable, although I think "Qaida" is preferred. And, "moslem" or "muslim" also...

I have seen both moslem and muslim used, going back to Mark Twain and Kipling as well as more modern writers. Seems like it's custom, moreso than dictionary.

'Rat

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 19, 2003, 12:05 PM
Yeah, Moslem works too.

And i told you.. I wasnt talking about Bush.