White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 17, 2007.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    army times

     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    Bush asks for tons of cash to wage his idiotic war, then turns around and doesn't want to give the people fighting it raises. Way to support the troops, dumba**!
     
  3. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #3
    If he gives the cash to the people fighting his war it means he can't line his buddies pockets with it!
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    You're right! I forgot about that. :mad:
     
  5. Airforce macrumors 6502a

    Airforce

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #6
    That is so sad. That Bush could be so unbelievably petty with the people that are fighting his war....

    The man has absolutely no shame. None.

    I didn't think there were any more ways I could disrespect him. Obviously I was wrong.
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    What percentage of military families are on public assistance?
     
  8. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #8
    Remember what I said about Bush's referral to " OUR TROOPS " and then consider how much of the funding bill is going to Blackwater..

    BTW,

    Monday the 21st, there will be a 1 hour show about Blackwater on the Diane Rehm show.

    http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/
     
  9. latergator116 macrumors 68000

    latergator116

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Location:
    Providence, RI
    #9
    I actaully would have been surprised if they DID approve the pay hike. Maybe I'm just being cynical.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Disgusting and dishonorable in a time of war, not to mention low recruitment and questionable morale levels.

    But of course Bush supports the troops, unlike that Clinton guy who had no respect for the military at all...
     
  11. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #11
    Raises are tough to argue against. But, just to present some thoughts:

    1) Military benefits are pretty incredible compared to the private sector. When you start to factor those in, making pay equal would mean that the government would be paying significantly more to each employee than the private sector.

    2) Converting medical jobs seems like a smart idea. There are a lot of qualified folks that don't fit the military's requirements for one reason or another (usually physical condition/ailments). Being able to bring those people in would make medical staffing much more flexible.

    3) Increasing the death benefits to civilians is a no-brainer - I don't understand the administration's opposition.

    4) New (better? worse? not clear in the article) disability benefits for disabled retireees may be good, may not. For survivors of retirees I don't see why they need the increase any more than the survivor of any other retiree.

    5) The GI bill move sounds like it makes sense, but I really don't trust the VA.

    6) Pay for performance is a good idea and is still being worked out. I don't see what you would already begin to sale it back (as it seems is being sought).

    7) The Buy America provisions smell like dead pig. Maybe that's just my imagination, but you can't really blame me (can you?).

    8) Tricare should have controls on pharmaceutical prices to an extent (it's hard to convert benefits into cash), but they shouldn't be too limiting. I also don't see what beneficiaries shouldn't pay minimal fees into the system. Even token value payments would go a long way to offsetting the cost of the system (and I hope allow for allocation to other systemic improvements).
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    All of the ones I know. Some even had their med coverage cut. Supporting the troops my ass.

    If the Dems were smart they'd be playing this up over and over again, but they aren't, so once again they won't.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    How many hours a week does a grunt in Iraq work? Factor that into your pipe and smoke it. ;)
     
  14. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #14
    In Iraq? You mean those getting combat pay? I wouldn't include hazard pay since that is paid in any hazardous area.
     
  15. aristobrat macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #15
    How is this possible?

    The minimum compensation of anyone active-duty that's been in for more than 4 months is $32,059. That's more than Apple pays my partner to be a full-time Creative!
    http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/pay/2007Pay/blsalenl.htm


    So assuming the other half of that family contributes nothing to the family income (i.e. it's a single-income family), does a yearly income of $32,059 really qualify a family for public assistance?

    FWIW,

    If that person with a family gets put in a combat zone (even for just one day), their entire months pay is untaxed, plus they'll receive an additional "imminent danger pay" of $225/month. If they're separated from their family for more than 30 days, they'll receive an additional payment of $250/month.
    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/fy2005paycharts/a/combatpay.htm

    So the minimum a "grunt" with a family who lives in my area who ends up pulling a tour in Iraq for a year should make is:

    $32,059 = minimum compensation
    $02,700 = imminent danger pay
    $03,000 = Family Separation Allowance
    --------
    $37,759 = minimum take-home pay (which is the equiv of a ~$47,198 salary after taxes were taken out of it)

    I think Bush is being penny-wise but pound-foolish over this .5% raise.
     
  16. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #16
    yeah i'm pretty sure it took hours after hours to get work done
    like this by the british for example

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW0-WRScX3g


    for benefits i don't know the US numbers but i wouldn't be surprised that they are not bad

    when i were in the austrian army in 2002 the benefits were around 200+% on top of normal pay for those serving in the kosovo, golan and afghanistan
    i think a private first class (who continued to serve after conscript service) who would normally get around 700-800 + food/living in camp (varies a lot) could get around 2800/month

    since a "certain" training is mandatory most are corporals or even already seargent when they do such missions already .. for a grunt-seargent it would be more like 4000-5000 euro per month, for a staff seargent already 5000+
    more if he is a specialist

    edit: just serving on border patrol duty gives already nearly 100%+... and there us conscripts were doing the grunt work


    edit: i would say having a general lower wage but a higher one for more dangerous duties is much better but of course in austria all foreign missions are made up from volunteers
    i did get to know quite a few personal who simply decided not to do them and wait longer for promotion instead: "sure i get paid only a fraction but i can be at home at 4 a clock everyday and still get promoted automatically every 3 years"

    edit2: a danger pay of 225 per month is ridiculous low
     
  17. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    You misread the chart:

    So it's $32k, not 63k.

    Base bay for E1 with 4 months is 1301.40, or $15,616.80 a year.

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/2007paycharts/l/bl07enlbasepay1.htm
     
  18. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #18
    I'm pretty sure sushi doesn't care about your concern for our military. Any minute now he'll tell us:

    As for your sympathy for Military people. Please don't waste your time. We don't want or need sympathy from folks such as yourself. Rather we appreciate those who truly support the military and don't give it lip service thank you very much.​

    Link
     
  19. aristobrat macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #19
    I definitely did. Ack! :eek:

    Thanks, I updated my original post to reflect that the minimum compensation for an E-1 (with 4+ months of service) averages to $32,000 a year.
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    No, no... I'm talking about dividing the pay/benefits package value by the number of hours worked, then comparing it to an average US worker.

    Somehow I suspect that soldiers put in significantly more than 40 hours a week when they are in theater.
     
  21. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #21
    So its okay to give Congress a pay raise but not the people who they're sending over to fight? Blech.
     
  22. aristobrat macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #22
    Huh? All active-duty military are going to get a raise. Isn't the issue that Congress wants to give them a 3.5% raise but the President only wants the raise to be 3.0%?

    The last raise that Congress gave itself was 2%.

    Going back to my penny-safe, pound-foolish remark about the President, he's probably thinking of "military raise" in terms of the salaries of all 1.4 million active-duty military personnel being raised (the majority of whom are unlikely to see any front-line action), whereas most of the public thinks of the front-line soldiers when they hear anything having to do with the military.
     
  23. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #23
    Ok, I should have been clearer. I don't know how they qualified, but they all did for things like WIC. Maybe it's because they're in the service, but I know I always made more than they did, even when I didn't make that much. And as for the meds cut, the VA is notorious for denying or delaying coverage. I know a guy who had to fight to have them take out some shrapnel. They kept trying to say maybe he got it somewhere else, because the incident report wasn't filed properly when it happened. Another who keeps getting letters saying they're cutting him off. Another who got sent a bill from the hospital when his wife gave birth because the insurance didn't want to cover it. And yet another who has to raise hell just to see a doctor when he goes in, despite dying of cancer he received after being exposed to radiated material. Don't even get me started on mental health care.

    Anecdotal, but I've got more horror stories if you want to hear about the shabby treatment grunts get.
     

Share This Page