pay our soldiers more

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jefhatfield, Aug 15, 2004.

  1. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #1
    the best description i have heard about the difference between republicans and democrats is that while they both want to spend your tax monies and make our country a better place, the difference is how they decide to spend that money

    though i am a democrat and tend to favor social programs/ideals over tax cuts for the rich/big corporations and defense/foreign wars, i strongly believe that soldiers also need to be paid what they are worth...nobody blinks at the high cost of a fighter jet yet are willing to pay a pilot a fraction of what they can make on the outside as a commercial pilot

    hospitals and equipment are readily acquired yet military doctors get paid a third, or less, of what a civilian doctor makes

    and techies in the army (from computer operators to MSEEs)? let's not even go there...i live near silicon valley and some low level managers in high tech make way more than a four star general

    also i believe federal civil servants should receive fair pay...having been on the federal side of things once, i cannot see how we can find and retain talent for our armed forces and civil servants...especially now that bush has cut cost of living increases and rolled back federal pay growth by no less than 15 pecent
     
  2. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #2
    I definately don't think that Bush should declare the end of a war that wasn't over to make himself look good and so he could cut pay back to non-combat pay. So if that is "pay our soldiers more" than I agree.
     
  3. jefhatfield thread starter Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #3

    with the war, which cost TOO MUCH, i think the best thing is if we didn't go to iraq in the first place...that would save money...here we are in a recession and w goes to war in a country he said backed terrorists and had wmd's

    when i was entering b-school, i went to a school which had many military people and many civilian people...the difference in pay of what these equally qualified leaders/managers got paid was astounding

    right after graduating from college in 94, i went to a job fair in silicon valley and looked at the offers...for instance, being a hr/personnel/supply officer in the navy would pay 22k a year with a special lt. jr. grade/OS-2 incentive, but usually paid 19k a year for an ensign if that incentive was not there...same pay for the civil service equivalent to ensign/19k a year

    the average hr job in the civilian world, with a bachelor's degree, paid in excess of 30k a year to start...and you don't have people shooting at you
     
  4. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #4
    Obviously I agree about never going to war in the first place...
     
  5. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #5
    Do you know for a fact whether he cut back on "hazard" pay or not? I would be that he hasn't. Such pay can be given to you even when your not in an arena that is declared combat.

    If he had cut back on "hazard" pay for those in Iraq he would lose every vote he would've gotten in the military so I doubt that happened.
     
  6. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #6
    I know for a fact as much as I can know in this area. I'm the wrong person to ask to verify it, though. Not sure if my hubby pulled the info from the forums he is on, if I found it here, or if it was part of a news paper article... It came up ages ago...
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    A year ago they tried to roll it back, but it became apparent quite quicky that such cost-cutting would be wildly unpopular.

    So they flip-flopped.
     
  8. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #8

    I never heard about the flip-flop... so I got half my facts straight :D
     
  9. jefhatfield thread starter Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #9
    the local military schools here get soldiers out of combat...most of the grads of defense language institute graduate to non infantry intelligence units and all of the grads of naval postgraduate school move on to desk jobs in intelligence, IT, or government policy...he he, it's many of these specialized soldiers who become much more hireable in the civilian sector and leave for better pay

    the mood of those soldiers is very upbeat

    we used to have a military base which trained first strike light infantry soldiers, the ones specialized for difficult warfare such as what's going on in afganistan and iraq...they knew that they might not survive the deployments they were trained for...they were one notch below special forces command and were a rough and tumble lot and "contributed" to most of the local crime in town and kept the now defuct gin mills hopping;)
     
  10. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #10
    Wasn't that during the Clinton Administration?
     
  11. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #11
    Clinton, unlike Bush, never pretended to be a stalwart war President committed to our troops. A super-strong military didn't seem as important in the 90s for obvious reasons. But Bush is more at fault because the military is extremely important now and he's abusing our troops.
     
  12. SuperChuck macrumors 6502

    SuperChuck

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Location:
    Chucktown, SC
    #12
    This is a key piece of the $87 Billion puzzle.

    Kerry voted for the $87 Billion in its initial draft, which included massive improvements in the federal medical insurance policy that is given to all active military and their families. It also included substantial increases in funding for Veterans Administration Hospitals to help cover the cost of the war's casualties, as well as a very small tax hike on the top 1% of Americans to help pay for the whole thing.

    Following the instructions of a memo from the White House, Senate Republicans crushed the measure, and amended it to remove everything listed above.

    That would be the bill Kerry voted against. ("I voted for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it.")

    I don't believe it included pay raises for personnel (just added benefits), but I do know that Kerry has included that in his agenda and Bush has not.
     

Share This Page