Even with 1 out of 5 of our military families on food stamps. Mr Bush is against the DEM's 3.5 pay raise. Bush wants the line held at 3%. Said there getting pay enough.
Bush Against Military Pay Raise
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
- Sep 27, 2005
- 1,171
- 14
- 0
Why should the military be paid more for photo ops?
Why should the military be paid more for photo ops?
that's all Bush uses them for, oh yeah dying too. Bush does not care about Americans, why do you think he killed so many? Aren't all of you in the military glad you voted for this guy? Support the troops, what bullsh@t. Repubs think if they tie support for the troops to the war then people will also support the war, but Repubs don't care about the people themselves. The mission of big business in this country is to keep you in debt. This is why Bush signed the bankruptcy bill, and the following Jan creditcards doubled the minimum payment. The drug bill, after signed stock went through the roof, behind closed doors energy policy. If you're in big business, Bush is your man, if you're a average American you're fu@ked. Maybe Bush has a plan to use illegals in the military that way he can just give them room and board. Bush has destroyed many lives, and has 19 months left to destroy more.
Why should the military be paid more for photo ops?
that's all Bush uses them for, oh yeah dying too. Bush does not care about Americans, why do you think he killed so many? Aren't all of you in the military glad you voted for this guy? Support the troops, what bullsh@t. Repubs think if they tie support for the troops to the war then people will also support the war, but Repubs don't care about the people themselves. The mission of big business in this country is to keep you in debt. This is why Bush signed the bankruptcy bill, and the following Jan creditcards doubled the minimum payment. The drug bill, after signed stock went through the roof, behind closed doors energy policy. If you're in big business, Bush is your man, if you're a average American you're fu@ked. Maybe Bush has a plan to use illegals in the military that way he can just give them room and board. Bush has destroyed many lives, and has 19 months left to destroy more.
Spy then why in the world would a middle class person vote for these guys?:shrug:
They play the fear game. They tell you that the Dems will give everyting away to the poor. Meanwhile, they have declared on the working class. Tell me this Sponge, with gas prices going up so far and so fast, how the feds say there is not inflation?
Oh there is inflation all right just saw it at my local supermarket. We might have to get some illegal immigrants in the Tuna industry because that stuff is expensive. Maybe some of these guys who pay shit to these illegal immigrants could take a little pay cut and bring down the prices. Maybe not buy a car and just keep the ten they have? You know Stevie, we are on the same side as Weasal so we may have to rethink this. Nah Weasal got this one right in my book. what i don't understand is Kennedy is a pretty good union guy. What are the unions in Boston saying about this? Kinda like when Clinton past that shit Nafta deal so the Republicans could once again laugh at the American worker. Perot was right about that one. By the way take it easy on Smurph. I think he is loaded finacially and doesn't know how to do wash or cut the grass. This is a hard one to get our point across because everyone in the media makes good money and like rich Smurph they don't want to cut there own grass or make there own bed so they love this bill. I havent heard what Pat Buchana said about this yet but im sure he doesn't like it either. He is another conservative with some balls that will call it like it is sometimes.
Sponge, for Kennedy it was all about votes. If he can turn these illegal legal they will vote democrat for the benefits and social programs. It was a great compromise. Both sides win. The American people lose.
Honestly are these illegal immigrants really gonna vote? We can't even get our own people to vote. And if they do im sure the Republicans in time will have them suckered into voting for them. They are very good at that game and the democrats are pathetic. Hey, we got guys right on the site voting for the guys that love billionaires and don't give a piss about them and there own best interest, so why would immigrants be any different? I have said it before and i will say it again we desperately need a third party. Why can't one of those billionaires just take the plunge. Trump, Gates, Buffet. I would vote for any of them. I guess they just don't want to be bothered. Trump it would make me sick voting for him but hey i voted for my present mayor of my township who i like about as much as I like onions. He lives two blocks down so i knew he would favor the neighborhood so in essence that would be my best interest. Killed me to pull that lever but the streets got repaved. I think he is about ready to go to jail tho. I predicted two things for that clown. I said he would either eventually turn into a Republican or go to jail. Looks like jail is the one. Oh and DJ its par for the course for Bush. One of the great wonders in this world is how the arm forces time and time again vote Republican like the republicans actually care about them. I think with Iraq they finally might have come to their senses but who knows. I heard a general about a month ago saying how rotten the republicans treat the military and he along with others has to get the message across to fellow soldiers that Republicans do not have there best interest at heart.
Good question spy. I guess they just didnt think of it. they rather look weak again instead of slick. We are stuck with clowns or thieves.
German Prisoner of war to an American officer - April 1945. "When do you stop sending your Military personnel to slaughter(Normandy)"
American officer."When you run out of bullets"
The largest secured facility for diplomats on the planet is being erected on the backs of Grandmothers and Fathers dying in Iraq.
American officer."When you run out of bullets"
The largest secured facility for diplomats on the planet is being erected on the backs of Grandmothers and Fathers dying in Iraq.
---and your sources are where ???--I'm particularily interested in the quote where GW said their getting enough.
I assume it's CNN as they have you using their tactics--
Your thread title--
"Bush Against Military Pay Raise"
--but acknowledge in very next statement he's for a 3% raise-- ever consider being a reporter for liberal blogs:shrug:
Last edited:
DTB it was on most networks back 5/17 5/18. It was included in a budget that was being discussed. In with the story about why so many of our military are on food stamps. The thing about that part was so many were officers not just enlisted guys. I believe another place I saw this was a story in USA Today Money portion.
I could never believe "they're being paid enough" would come from George W's lips. Cheney maybe but not the GW
Actually as reported the Dem's and hand full Reb's wanted 4%. Bush said he would not accept that. He wanted 3% line held. So they dropped back to 3.5 for compromise. I don't know if they added to bill just signed or not. But they were going to.
So Bush was against a bigger pay raise.
And it's a dam shame we have so many on foods stamps. Bush did have 6 years with total Reb's rule to do something about it.
Sorry im not smart enough to make this up.
So Bush was against a bigger pay raise.
And it's a dam shame we have so many on foods stamps. Bush did have 6 years with total Reb's rule to do something about it.
Sorry im not smart enough to make this up.
ARMY TIMES
White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 16, 2007 17:34:13 EDT
Troops don?t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.
The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year?s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.
The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.
Bush budget officials said the administration ?strongly opposes? both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases ?unnecessary.?
?When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president?s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families,? the policy statement says. ?While we agree military pay must be kept competitive, the 3 percent raise, equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index, will do that.?
The House of Representatives plans on passing the bill tomorrow. The Senate Armed Services Committee has announced it will start writing its version of the bill next week.
Two items in the House defense bill could lead to a veto, the policy statement warns. One is a change in the National Security Personnel system that would back away from the pay-for-performance initiative pushed by the Bush administration and reverse some of the flexibility provided in current law. The second issue that could prompt a veto are Buy America provisions in the bill that White House officials said ?would impose unrealistically arduous requirements.?
In addition to the pay raise, there are other personnel initiatives in the bill that the White House opposes.
A prohibition on converting medical jobs held by military members into civilian positions drew opposition. ?This will eliminate the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense to use civilian medical personnel for jobs away from the battlefield and at the same time use the converted military billets to enhance the strength of operating units,? the policy statement says.
A death gratuity for federal civilian employees who die in support of military operations, and new benefits for disabled retirees and the survivors of military retirees also drew complaints.
This includes the transfer of the GI Bill benefits program for reservists from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a step that GI Bill supporters said is needed to set the stage for increases in reserve benefits that have been kept low by the military because it views the program as a retention incentive rather than a post-service education program.
Refusal by lawmakers to approve Tricare fees for beneficiaries, something administration officials view as an important step in holding down health care cost, also drew opposition, along with a provision imposing price controls on prescription drugs dispensed to Tricare users.
White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 16, 2007 17:34:13 EDT
Troops don?t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.
The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year?s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.
The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.
Bush budget officials said the administration ?strongly opposes? both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases ?unnecessary.?
?When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president?s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families,? the policy statement says. ?While we agree military pay must be kept competitive, the 3 percent raise, equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index, will do that.?
The House of Representatives plans on passing the bill tomorrow. The Senate Armed Services Committee has announced it will start writing its version of the bill next week.
Two items in the House defense bill could lead to a veto, the policy statement warns. One is a change in the National Security Personnel system that would back away from the pay-for-performance initiative pushed by the Bush administration and reverse some of the flexibility provided in current law. The second issue that could prompt a veto are Buy America provisions in the bill that White House officials said ?would impose unrealistically arduous requirements.?
In addition to the pay raise, there are other personnel initiatives in the bill that the White House opposes.
A prohibition on converting medical jobs held by military members into civilian positions drew opposition. ?This will eliminate the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense to use civilian medical personnel for jobs away from the battlefield and at the same time use the converted military billets to enhance the strength of operating units,? the policy statement says.
A death gratuity for federal civilian employees who die in support of military operations, and new benefits for disabled retirees and the survivors of military retirees also drew complaints.
This includes the transfer of the GI Bill benefits program for reservists from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a step that GI Bill supporters said is needed to set the stage for increases in reserve benefits that have been kept low by the military because it views the program as a retention incentive rather than a post-service education program.
Refusal by lawmakers to approve Tricare fees for beneficiaries, something administration officials view as an important step in holding down health care cost, also drew opposition, along with a provision imposing price controls on prescription drugs dispensed to Tricare users.
i was commenting on your misleading title which you have a habit of doing.
i don't agree with what bush is doing & i have said a few times here that i think there should be a separate military/security tax put on the american public to cover pay raises & such. i think "our leaders" should make it more attractive for people to enter the military.
Last edited:
The people in the military for what they do should be able to name their price. To sit there and say they make enough is basically another shot from the anti american worker right. I have an idea for these frauds and disgrace to call themselves americans, how about cutting back the biggest scam of them all? There favorite scam, defense spending. How about we cut back a little and give that money to the soldiers in this country? We spend (i mean waste)more on defense then every other nation combined. Its the best scam going and when you vote to cut back some on this total waste of money for the select few, the right slimes you up. The typical american thinks as long as you spend money the product will be great. These guys are just rapping all of us. All that waste of money and a few box cutters got us. The military in my opinion should be the highest paid people in the country. Especially when you have a careless and corrupt president who puts you in harms way with a bunch of lies and greedy tendencies.
Food Stamps are not the Answer
Military.com
By: Gene Gomulka
In response to an earlier article, "Surviving on Military Pay," it appears that while most E-5s and above do not question the results of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on military compensation, a number of E-1 through E-4 personnel feel betrayed that GAO did not identify some very serious flaws in the current military pay structure.
Here are some quotes from a few letters on the topic:
- "I am an E-4 in the Army with two kids and a wife and there are many times that we live pay check to pay check. There are a lot of other specialists that live around me with kids and they too are living paycheck to paycheck. I would like to know where GAO took the survey from and what ranks because anyone less then a E-5 with kids is just barely making it by?"
- "My husband is deployed with a National Guard unit in Iraq. His military salary does not cover our monthly mortgage payment, and while he?s gone, my three children and I use food stamps to eat."
- "While we families under E-5 receive food stamps and other funding when available, we go from pay check to pay check robbing Peter to pay Paul."
- "Could you please do your part to inform GAO that most enlisted military personnel E-5 and below qualify for some kind of government assistance, i.e. food stamps, subsidized daycare. If my husband, a Corporal (E-4) in the Marine Corps, and others like him, is so well paid, then why do we qualify for government assistance? My family and thousands of families like ours have to live from paycheck to paycheck not because we are trying to live beyond our means, but because our means are above what the military member is being paid."
Anyone reading the GAO report might be inclined to wonder why many people in the military are complaining about their pay or are on food stamps when GAO reported that the "total annual cost to provide military compensation was about on average $112,000.00 per active duty servicemember." The fact is that more than half of that $112K is in the form of deferred compensation such as retirement benefits that apply to less than one in five servicemembers who will serve a full career. For the four out of five servicemembers who will never receive retirement benefits, it?s the up-front pay today that is of significance. It is this pay, and not the deferred benefits, that GAO needs to carefully analyze.
The current military pay structure made sense prior to the introduction of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973 when most E-1 through E-4 personnel were single. Programmed pay increases for E-5 and above were not simply based upon their greater knowledge, experience and longevity, but also on the fact that most E-5s and above had spouses and children to support. Because most E-1s through E-4s were single and married only after they were promoted or returned to civilian life, the pay they received proved adequate to meet their single expenses.
One respondent concurred with this assessment when he wrote: "In the old days not too many soldiers in the junior ranks were married. It is different today and we see many soldiers that are young and in junior ranks with children . . . The American soldiers? pay should be looked at and set straight. If a soldier?s family is taken care of at home, that is one thing less soldiers have to worry about when they are deployed."
Many counselors and support agencies that provide financial and budget counseling recognize that the current pay structure for junior enlisted personnel is inadequate to support a family with one or more children unless the non-military spouse earns more than what they as a couple would have to pay for child support. The problem is, however, that many branches of the military do not make this fact known prior to or after recruitment.
I can think of two reasons why junior enlisted personnel are not warned about the financial problems that await them if they marry prior to being promoted to E-5. One: The military is short on recruits (particularly the Army) and informing them of this problem could harm recruitment. Two: Some branches of the military, like GAO, are not smart enough to recognize the inadequacy of pay for married personnel under E-5 with children.
The failure to provide more adequate financial support to married junior enlisted is scandalous. One woman wrote, "Shame, shame for having military families deal with so many financial problems on top of the stresses of having a loved one put in harms way. Is this the best we can do for our military families? I could go on and on at this point, but I will just say this: What a disgrace."
Insofar as military counselors and chaplains acknowledge that financial problems are a major cause for marital breakdown, why should we be surprised at high military divorce rates when the current pay structure for junior personnel is inadequate to support a family? While it would be responsible on the part of the armed services to warn personnel in the recruitment process and at basic training about the financial problems they might face as E-1s through E-4s if they were to marry and have children, it is morally irresponsible not to appraise them of this shortcoming in the current pay structure.
If we can issue warnings to people about possible harmful side effects involved in using certain drugs, we should also be able to warn people about the possible side effects of marrying in a military that does not provide adequate financial support for married junior enlisted personnel that can result in divorce, higher rates of abuse and suicide, and children growing up in broken homes who themselves become prone to a variety of problems. If military leaders really believe, as they often say, that their people, and not their weapons, are their most important assets, then they need to either increase pay for junior enlisted personnel, or warn them about potential financial problems involving married personnel under E-5 with children.
Military.com
By: Gene Gomulka
In response to an earlier article, "Surviving on Military Pay," it appears that while most E-5s and above do not question the results of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on military compensation, a number of E-1 through E-4 personnel feel betrayed that GAO did not identify some very serious flaws in the current military pay structure.
Here are some quotes from a few letters on the topic:
- "I am an E-4 in the Army with two kids and a wife and there are many times that we live pay check to pay check. There are a lot of other specialists that live around me with kids and they too are living paycheck to paycheck. I would like to know where GAO took the survey from and what ranks because anyone less then a E-5 with kids is just barely making it by?"
- "My husband is deployed with a National Guard unit in Iraq. His military salary does not cover our monthly mortgage payment, and while he?s gone, my three children and I use food stamps to eat."
- "While we families under E-5 receive food stamps and other funding when available, we go from pay check to pay check robbing Peter to pay Paul."
- "Could you please do your part to inform GAO that most enlisted military personnel E-5 and below qualify for some kind of government assistance, i.e. food stamps, subsidized daycare. If my husband, a Corporal (E-4) in the Marine Corps, and others like him, is so well paid, then why do we qualify for government assistance? My family and thousands of families like ours have to live from paycheck to paycheck not because we are trying to live beyond our means, but because our means are above what the military member is being paid."
Anyone reading the GAO report might be inclined to wonder why many people in the military are complaining about their pay or are on food stamps when GAO reported that the "total annual cost to provide military compensation was about on average $112,000.00 per active duty servicemember." The fact is that more than half of that $112K is in the form of deferred compensation such as retirement benefits that apply to less than one in five servicemembers who will serve a full career. For the four out of five servicemembers who will never receive retirement benefits, it?s the up-front pay today that is of significance. It is this pay, and not the deferred benefits, that GAO needs to carefully analyze.
The current military pay structure made sense prior to the introduction of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973 when most E-1 through E-4 personnel were single. Programmed pay increases for E-5 and above were not simply based upon their greater knowledge, experience and longevity, but also on the fact that most E-5s and above had spouses and children to support. Because most E-1s through E-4s were single and married only after they were promoted or returned to civilian life, the pay they received proved adequate to meet their single expenses.
One respondent concurred with this assessment when he wrote: "In the old days not too many soldiers in the junior ranks were married. It is different today and we see many soldiers that are young and in junior ranks with children . . . The American soldiers? pay should be looked at and set straight. If a soldier?s family is taken care of at home, that is one thing less soldiers have to worry about when they are deployed."
Many counselors and support agencies that provide financial and budget counseling recognize that the current pay structure for junior enlisted personnel is inadequate to support a family with one or more children unless the non-military spouse earns more than what they as a couple would have to pay for child support. The problem is, however, that many branches of the military do not make this fact known prior to or after recruitment.
I can think of two reasons why junior enlisted personnel are not warned about the financial problems that await them if they marry prior to being promoted to E-5. One: The military is short on recruits (particularly the Army) and informing them of this problem could harm recruitment. Two: Some branches of the military, like GAO, are not smart enough to recognize the inadequacy of pay for married personnel under E-5 with children.
The failure to provide more adequate financial support to married junior enlisted is scandalous. One woman wrote, "Shame, shame for having military families deal with so many financial problems on top of the stresses of having a loved one put in harms way. Is this the best we can do for our military families? I could go on and on at this point, but I will just say this: What a disgrace."
Insofar as military counselors and chaplains acknowledge that financial problems are a major cause for marital breakdown, why should we be surprised at high military divorce rates when the current pay structure for junior personnel is inadequate to support a family? While it would be responsible on the part of the armed services to warn personnel in the recruitment process and at basic training about the financial problems they might face as E-1s through E-4s if they were to marry and have children, it is morally irresponsible not to appraise them of this shortcoming in the current pay structure.
If we can issue warnings to people about possible harmful side effects involved in using certain drugs, we should also be able to warn people about the possible side effects of marrying in a military that does not provide adequate financial support for married junior enlisted personnel that can result in divorce, higher rates of abuse and suicide, and children growing up in broken homes who themselves become prone to a variety of problems. If military leaders really believe, as they often say, that their people, and not their weapons, are their most important assets, then they need to either increase pay for junior enlisted personnel, or warn them about potential financial problems involving married personnel under E-5 with children.
So, after brief review, it appears Auspice provided the verification Wayne was looking for. I doubt we'll see anything more on this from the media gallery...:142smilie
