PDA

View Full Version : Obama threatens veto of defense bill if military health care fees not increased



txradioguy
06-30-2012, 10:26 AM
On Friday, the Obama Administration threatened to veto a defense appropriations bill in part because it does not include increased health care fees for members of the military, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

“The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation,” the White House wrote.

"The Administration asks the House to reconsider the TRICARE fee proposals, which are essential for DOD to successfully address rising personnel costs. The $1.8 billion in savings are part of a carefully balanced FY 2013 Budget request," the statement added.

"If the President were presented with H.R. 5856, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill," the statement says.

The Free Beacon added:

President Obama’s most recent budget proposal includes billions of dollars in higher fees for members of TRICARE, the military health care system, and is part of the administration’s plan to cut nearly $500 billion from the Pentagon’s budget.

According to the Administration, the increases are “essential for DOD to successfully address rising personnel costs.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-threatens-veto-of-defense-bill-if-military-health-care-fees-not-increased

Gina
06-30-2012, 11:26 AM
So basically, Obama cuts the budget for this, raises the costs of this, and then wants soldiers to pay for it? It seems classic Obama if I'm reading it right.

Odysseus
06-30-2012, 12:28 PM
So basically, Obama cuts the budget for this, raises the costs of this, and then wants soldiers to pay for it? It seems classic Obama if I'm reading it right.

Oh, it is. Remember when there was a risk of a shutdown and he refused to ensure that the military would be paid?

Cicero
06-30-2012, 03:43 PM
On Friday, the Obama Administration threatened to veto a defense appropriations bill in part because it does not include increased health care fees for members of the military, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

“The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation,” the White House wrote.

"The Administration asks the House to reconsider the TRICARE fee proposals, which are essential for DOD to successfully address rising personnel costs. The $1.8 billion in savings are part of a carefully balanced FY 2013 Budget request," the statement added.

"If the President were presented with H.R. 5856, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill," the statement says.

The Free Beacon added:

President Obama’s most recent budget proposal includes billions of dollars in higher fees for members of TRICARE, the military health care system, and is part of the administration’s plan to cut nearly $500 billion from the Pentagon’s budget.

According to the Administration, the increases are “essential for DOD to successfully address rising personnel costs.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-threatens-veto-of-defense-bill-if-military-health-care-fees-not-increased

I would send it as it is and dare him to veto it. There are a lot of military families barely making it as it is. It is inexcusable for this country to have military families on food stamps and now Obumbler wants to take more money from them to fund his social engineering. :mg:

Janice
06-30-2012, 04:27 PM
... Obama’s most recent budget proposal ...

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-threatens-veto-of-defense-bill-if-military-health-care-fees-not-increased

Should read something like "0'Pharoah’s most recent budget demolition proposal ..."

SaintLouieWoman
06-30-2012, 05:55 PM
I would send it as it is and dare him to veto it. There are a lot of military families barely making it as it is. It is inexcusable for this country to have military families on food stamps and now Obumbler wants to take more money from them to fund his social engineering. :mg:

Good comment. Obama is the most calculating pol I've ever seen. He figures the majority of the military won't vote for him, so he'll cut them to pay for more giveaways to the illegals and the hangers-on.

He needs to be defeated, big time. I hope there are enough good men and women who will vote him out.

Besides his throwing seniors under the bus by lowering the medical services that will be approved for them, he's tossing the military under with the elderly. That bus is going to have a whole lot of folks under there.

Odysseus
06-30-2012, 07:10 PM
Good comment. Obama is the most calculating pol I've ever seen. He figures the majority of the military won't vote for him, so he'll cut them to pay for more giveaways to the illegals and the hangers-on.

He needs to be defeated, big time. I hope there are enough good men and women who will vote him out.

Besides his throwing seniors under the bus by lowering the medical services that will be approved for them, he's tossing the military under with the elderly. That bus is going to have a whole lot of folks under there.

He's certainly happy to screw us over as a constituency, but it goes beyond that. The left has a vicious hostility to the US armed forces. We're a disciplined group of people that believe in the Constitution and put duty over personal gratification. We're as culturally different from the American left as it is possible to be.

Cicero
07-01-2012, 01:52 AM
He's certainly happy to screw us over as a constituency, but it goes beyond that. The left has a vicious hostility to the US armed forces. We're a disciplined group of people that believe in the Constitution and put duty over personal gratification. We're as culturally different from the American left as it is possible to be.

The hate affair with the left goes back to the Vietnam era I think. My father was one of the returning soldiers that was literally spit on for his service. It bothers him to this day.

Novaheart
07-01-2012, 08:59 AM
I would send it as it is and dare him to veto it. There are a lot of military families barely making it as it is. It is inexcusable for this country to have military families on food stamps and now Obumbler wants to take more money from them to fund his social engineering. :mg:

You can't broad brush military compensation as it has quite a range. Before commenting on the fees it would be useful to know what they are and how they compare to similarly compensated government employees.

TVDOC
07-01-2012, 11:09 AM
You can't broad brush military compensation as it has quite a range. Before commenting on the fees it would be useful to know what they are and how they compare to similarly compensated government employees.

BULLSHIT!

You are perfectly happy to take a group of patriotic Americans who volunteer to put on the uniform, submit to grueling training, waive a portion of their constitutional rights, earn severely substandard wages versus positions of comparable responsiblity in the civilian arena.. Ship them at the whim of a bunch of DC retards to every shithole in the world.......fighting wars, protecting civilians, and risking their lives, away from their families for more than a year at times.....eat crappy MRE's, live in tents in the hottest deserts on earth or freeze their asses off in some mountains like the Hindu Kush, or hump a 60 pound ruck through some torrid jungle somewhere......

Protecting you and others.......regardless of whether you might or might not agree with their mission, they do their duty.......

There is no way that these dedicated Americans can be compensated enough for their sacrifice, let alone charging them higher rates from their meager earnings for their health benefits.

And you have the collosal f**king chutzpah to compare them to some GS-3 clerk in a government office somewhere that leaves his/her air conditioned office at one second past five every work day.....

You are simply despicable....beneath contempt.....

doc

Rockntractor
07-01-2012, 11:18 AM
You are simply despicable....beneath contempt.....

doc

He will defend unions no matter how unrealistic their requests.

TVDOC
07-01-2012, 11:47 AM
He will defend unions no matter how unrealistic their requests.

Wonder how many governnment union members have to apply for food stamps to feed their families, like many members of our military do?

My money is on damn few......

My original opinion of this scumbag still stands....

doc

Wibbins
07-01-2012, 12:27 PM
The hate affair with the left goes back to the Vietnam era I think. My father was one of the returning soldiers that was literally spit on for his service. It bothers him to this day.

Vietnam was before my time, but if I remember it correctly didn't the UN BEG us to go to war in 'Nam? Didn't the joke of a president Nixon, although did some shady crap pull out the troops because they were being slaughtered?

The problem the left has with our military is that our army is 100% volunteer, if the left every wanted to pull martial law they would have to go through the volunteers that operate the military before any harm came to the soldier's family, friends, and fellow Americans. Look at North Korea, pretty sure they don't have voluntary armies, they don't care about their fellow North Koreans, their entire country to bled dry to keep their military looking good, parades showing off missiles (most of them probably can't reach south korea lol).


The left sees the US military not as a fighting force for freedom, but as an imperialistic, evil, human rights violating group of criminals; ironically the left thinks the enemies of the US even when they attack us i.e 9/11 are the REAL victims.

Think of all the wars where we had presidents that didn't believe in "appeasement" i.e WWI and WWII and the cold war, in WWII we were trying to not enter the war because it wasn't our problem, well the Japanese figured they could attack the US and get away with it; long story short we weren't afraid of nuking japan, even after we dropped the 2nd nuke it took 5 days or say before they surrendered, we did NOT do what the bad guys do in action movies where they send a few henchmen to take out the heroes instead of sending them all at once and overwhelming them. (We're doing this with Iraq and Afghanistan)



Soldier's are sworn to protect the Constitution and America, not some politician, when you volunteer to give your life for your country you don't mindlessly follow orders to kill the very people you're sworn to protect, your conscience and the very fiber of your being repulses at the idea of killing the families of other servicemen.


The U.S.A is the greatest country on Earth

txradioguy
07-01-2012, 03:09 PM
Wonder how many governnment union members have to apply for food stamps to feed their families, like many members of our military do?

My money is on damn few......

Well considering these fee hikes exclude the civilian employees (read Union Members) damn few is a high estimate.


My original opinion of this scumbag still stands....

doc

Your opinion is extremely accurate.

SaintLouieWoman
07-01-2012, 10:12 PM
BULLSHIT!

And you have the collosal f**king chutzpah to compare them to some GS-3 clerk in a government office somewhere that leaves his/her air conditioned office at one second past five every work day.....

doc

After selling office equipment to the feds for almost 30 years, I can tell you from experience that I quickly learned to never stand on the steps outside the door when the civilian employees left the building. It would have been like standing in the way of a bunch of stampeding elephants. :biggrin-new: (To be fair, that stampede happened in my office, too).

BTW, hardly any worked til 5. Again in fairness, many of them came in early. At least in the St Louis area, the average time they ran out of the buildings was 3:30pm.

RedGrouse
07-01-2012, 11:32 PM
BULLSHIT!

You are perfectly happy to take a group of patriotic Americans who volunteer to put on the uniform, submit to grueling training, waive a portion of their constitutional rights, earn severely substandard wages versus positions of comparable responsiblity in the civilian arena.. Ship them at the whim of a bunch of DC retards to every shithole in the world.......fighting wars, protecting civilians, and risking their lives, away from their families for more than a year at times.....eat crappy MRE's, live in tents in the hottest deserts on earth or freeze their asses off in some mountains like the Hindu Kush, or hump a 60 pound ruck through some torrid jungle somewhere......

Protecting you and others.......regardless of whether you might or might not agree with their mission, they do their duty.......

There is no way that these dedicated Americans can be compensated enough for their sacrifice, let alone charging them higher rates from their meager earnings for their health benefits.

And you have the collosal f**king chutzpah to compare them to some GS-3 clerk in a government office somewhere that leaves his/her air conditioned office at one second past five every work day.....

You are simply despicable....beneath contempt.....

doc

I wish I can High 5 you. :cool:

Odysseus
07-02-2012, 12:56 AM
You can't broad brush military compensation as it has quite a range. Before commenting on the fees it would be useful to know what they are and how they compare to similarly compensated government employees.


Military pay starts out extremely low for junior enlisted and officers, and given the level of responsibility that an E5 or an O1 has, it's pretty obvious that the junior ranks are underpaid. Note the starting pay:

2012 Basic Enlisted Military Pay Chart



Pay Grade
Years of Service


Less than 2
Over 2
Over 3
Over 4
Over 6


E-7
2680
2925
3037
3185
3301


E-6
2318
2550
2663
2772
2886


E-5
2123
2266
2375
2488
2662


E-4
1947
2046
2157
2267
2363


E-3
1757
1868
1981
1981
1981


E-2
1671
1671
1671
1671
1671


E-1
1491
1491
1491
1491
1491


E-1 with less than 4 months of service
1379








Imagine trying to raise a family on that kind of monthly pay, and keep in mind that this is before taxes. You can see why a lot of the junior enlisted families qualify for food stamps. It's a bit better on the officer side, but it's still a struggle for lieutenants and captains.

2012 Basic Officer Military Pay Chart



PayGrade
Years of Service


Under 2
Over 2
Over 3
Over 4
Over 6


O-8
9683
10000
10211
10270
10532


O-7
8046
8420
8593
8730
8979


O-6
5963
6552
6981
6981
7008


O-5
4971
5600
5988
6061
6303


O-4
4289
4966
5297
5371
5678


O-3
3771
4275
4615
5031
5272


O-2
3259
3711
4274
4419
4510


O-1
2828
2944
3559
3559
3559



Keep in mind that these are college graduates, with student loans on top of their other expenses. Now, you show me a job that pays that little, and demands so much, in the civilian government agencies, and you might just have a point.

Cicero
07-02-2012, 02:33 AM
Military pay starts out extremely low for junior enlisted and officers, and given the level of responsibility that an E5 or an O1 has, it's pretty obvious that the junior ranks are underpaid. Note the starting pay:

2012 Basic Enlisted Military Pay Chart



Pay Grade
Years of Service


Less than 2
Over 2
Over 3
Over 4
Over 6


E-7
2680
2925
3037
3185
3301


E-6
2318
2550
2663
2772
2886


E-5
2123
2266
2375
2488
2662


E-4
1947
2046
2157
2267
2363


E-3
1757
1868
1981
1981
1981


E-2
1671
1671
1671
1671
1671


E-1
1491
1491
1491
1491
1491


E-1 with less than 4 months of service
1379








Imagine trying to raise a family on that kind of monthly pay, and keep in mind that this is before taxes. You can see why a lot of the junior enlisted families qualify for food stamps. It's a bit better on the officer side, but it's still a struggle for lieutenants and captains.

2012 Basic Officer Military Pay Chart



PayGrade
Years of Service


Under 2
Over 2
Over 3
Over 4
Over 6


O-8
9683
10000
10211
10270
10532


O-7
8046
8420
8593
8730
8979


O-6
5963
6552
6981
6981
7008


O-5
4971
5600
5988
6061
6303


O-4
4289
4966
5297
5371
5678


O-3
3771
4275
4615
5031
5272


O-2
3259
3711
4274
4419
4510


O-1
2828
2944
3559
3559
3559



Keep in mind that these are college graduates, with student loans on top of their other expenses. Now, you show me a job that pays that little, and demands so much, in the civilian government agencies, and you might just have a point.

It is pathetic isn't it? I remember my brother-in-law's wife being so embarrassed to be using an EBT card to buy groceries for their kids while her husband was getting shot at thousands of miles away.

I also remember O bumblers remark that he was "proud generally" of our troops. They deserve so much more in a commander in chief.

txradioguy
07-02-2012, 07:02 AM
It is pathetic isn't it? I remember my brother-in-law's wife being so embarrassed to be using an EBT card to buy groceries for their kids while her husband was getting shot at thousands of miles away.

I also remember O bumblers remark that he was "proud generally" of our troops. They deserve so much more in a commander in chief.

It was getting better pay wise under President Bush. He really did help in that aspect.

But the last two yearly raises have been under 2% this next one is expected to come in IIRC at about 1.3% and the Obama administration is going to stop typing the pay raises to inflation if they get their way. Which means they'd be able to give us pay raises under 1%.

And at the same time they want to raise our deductables in some cases as much as 400% on tricare?

Good thing I didn't want to do this job for the money.

Gina
07-02-2012, 10:16 AM
It was getting better pay wise under President Bush. He really did help in that aspect.

But the last two yearly raises have been under 2% this next one is expected to come in IIRC at about 1.3% and the Obama administration is going to stop typing the pay raises to inflation if they get their way. Which means they'd be able to give us pay raises under 1%.

And at the same time they want to raise our deductables in some cases as much as 400% on tricare?

Good thing I didn't want to do this job for the money.

The liberal idea seems to be to make it so unappealing to join the military, that we won't have a big enough military to go to war. War is against liberal policy, at least the moonbat wing. Obama is a DUmmie I think. Remember, he was going to make the world love us again so we don't really need the military yanno. :rolleyes:

txradioguy
07-02-2012, 10:22 AM
The liberal idea seems to be to make it so unappealing to join the military, that we won't have a big enough military to go to war. War is against liberal policy, at least the moonbat wing. Obama is a DUmmie I think. Remember, he was going to make the world love us again so we don't really need the military yanno. :rolleyes:

That and we are an extension of his view that the all of the bad in the world has been caused by the U.S.A.

Gina
07-02-2012, 11:39 AM
That and we are an extension of his view that the all of the bad in the world has been caused by the U.S.A.

Yes. No American Exceptionalism, and we're not the biggest force for good in the world.. except that we donate more goods, money, and services to the world than any other nation. And give blood and treasure to countries that lately, don't really appreciate it. But we do it because it's the right thing to do.

Gina
07-02-2012, 11:39 PM
I pinched this off Facebook. My first thought was 'that should say Obama', and that would be good. The reality though, is that Obama will be out (sooner rather than later) but the media we're stuck with. Wouldn't it be grand if the media supported the troops and called the Executive Branch and Congress (and it looks like the SCOTUS too) to the carpet and spoke FOR America's heroes instead of dumping on them so much?

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/559175_379706132083558_1085835960_n.jpg

Novaheart
07-03-2012, 08:05 AM
Wonder how many governnment union members have to apply for food stamps to feed their families, like many members of our military do?

My money is on damn few......

My original opinion of this scumbag still stands....

doc


The most recent study of food stamp usage by service members was conducted in 2003 before significant gains in military compensation occurred. Even at that time, only 2100 service members were on food stamps, which was about one tenth of one percent of the active duty force.

Since 2002, military basic pay has increased by 42 percent, housing allowances by 83 percent and food allowance by 40 percent -- compared to a 32 percent rise in private-sector salaries, according to Defense Department compensation officials.

Almost any service member who qualifies for food stamps today has a large family and lives in base housing. Most of them only qualify because the value of base housing is not considered as income by the Department of Agriculture in determining food stamp eligibility.

In fiscal 2008, a total of 328 service members received Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA) at some point during the year. That was 0.02 percent of the 1.4 million on active duty.

-- Tom Philpott

ABOUT TOM PHILPOTT

Tom Philpott has been breaking news for and about military people since 1977. After service in the Coast Guard, and 17 years as a reporter and senior editor with Army Times Publishing Company, Tom launched "Military Update," his syndicated weekly news column, in 1994. "Military Update" features timely news and analysis on issues affecting active duty members, reservists, retirees and their families. Tom also edits a reader reaction column, "Military Forum." The online "home" for both features is Military.com.

Novaheart
07-03-2012, 08:21 AM
[LEFT]Military pay starts out extremely low for junior enlisted and officers, and given the level of responsibility that an E5 or an O1 has, it's pretty obvious that the junior ranks are underpaid. ..............

Keep in mind that these are college graduates, with student loans on top of their other expenses. Now, you show me a job that pays that little, and demands so much, in the civilian government agencies, and you might just have a point.

That's hardly the entire picture. Starting salaries are low, as we are told that they ought to be and that each person should strive to advance himself. But the military salary starts aren't exceptionally low and the benefits add to the compensation. You don't really have a good case at the moment, as a job, a career, or a vocation the military is one of the best deals going these days. When the military, police, and fire are some of the best (or only) jobs out there for a large segment of the population, you're looking at a problem.

Would you rather be a "poorly paid" but highly benefited supply manager in the Army or an unemployed $175,000 no benefits a year VP like my cousin?

Novaheart
07-03-2012, 08:26 AM
He will defend unions no matter how unrealistic their requests.

I'm still waiting for someone wringing his wrists to tell us what these awful fees are going to be.

Where you get your care - whether at an MTF or with a civilian who is participating in TRICARE Prime - will affect the cost. There is no cost for family members if they receive care at a military hospital or clinic. Visits to civilian PCMs or specialists not at the MTF cost $12 per visit for family members whose sponsor is E-5 and above. Family members whose sponsor is E-4 and below pay $6 for a civilian visit.
Sailors and family members who must spend the night in a hospital will pay about $10 a night for a stay in a military hospital, and only $11 a night, with a minimum charge of $25, for a stay in a civilian hospital. These fees are called co-pays.

Isn't that awful? Would you like to know how much it costs for a civilian government employee to go to the hospital with BCBS?

Novaheart
07-03-2012, 08:29 AM
After selling office equipment to the feds for almost 30 years, I can tell you from experience that I quickly learned to never stand on the steps outside the door when the civilian employees left the building. It would have been like standing in the way of a bunch of stampeding elephants. :biggrin-new: (To be fair, that stampede happened in my office, too).

BTW, hardly any worked til 5. Again in fairness, many of them came in early. At least in the St Louis area, the average time they ran out of the buildings was 3:30pm.

Civilian office hours in military activities are usually determined by the military officer in command with the agreement or rubber stamp of the civilian director. This is why both my parents got up before God for 30 years to drive into DC. And you know why these guys like to start so early and end the day so early? Golf.

txradioguy
07-03-2012, 09:11 AM
I'm still waiting for someone wringing his wrists to tell us what these awful fees are going to be.

Either you're just that lazy or you don't read too well.


Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/


Where you get your care - whether at an MTF or with a civilian who is participating in TRICARE Prime - will affect the cost. There is no cost for family members if they receive care at a military hospital or clinic.


Do you have any cluse how much of the treatment of families is sent off post? The MTF's are reduced...with the exception of about 5% of their patients to military members only. They send the family members off post for everything.

And that percentage climbs to 99% of the family member treatment is farmed off post when you're overseas.




Visits to civilian PCMs or specialists not at the MTF cost $12 per visit for family members whose sponsor is E-5 and above. Family members whose sponsor is E-4 and below pay $6 for a civilian visit.


Not true. Not sure where you're getting your imformation but it's about 20 years out of date. I can't even get prescriptions filled at a civilian pharmacy for $12 much less get an office visit to a doctor for that little.

Prime example...kid gets a filling at the dentist...costs me $99 for the filling on top of the $30 for the office call.

My daughter gets braces. Tri care only pays for $1.300 of that. I had to pony up the other $5,000 out of my own pocket.

And that was as an E-5 sergeant.


But I guess in your twisted little mind I should let me kids teeth rot and stay crooked right?


Sailors and family members who must spend the night in a hospital will pay about $10 a night for a stay in a military hospital, and only $11 a night, with a minimum charge of $25, for a stay in a civilian hospital. These fees are called co-pays.

You're talking about the charge for the room. You say nothing about any procedures or tests or scans they run on you while you're there.

That's what you get for cutting and pasting without knowing the full picture of what you're talking about.





Isn't that awful? Would you like to know how much it costs for a civilian government employee to go to the hospital with BCBS?

Except DoD civilians have a sweetheart deal throught their union and aren't subject to the same rate hikes that Obama is trying to foist on us.

Not that it matters to you...you're so far in the tank for this crap and you'll do and say whatever it takes...no matter how it stretches the truth as long as you defend this fraud currently in office.

txradioguy
07-03-2012, 09:14 AM
That's hardly the entire picture. Starting salaries are low, as we are told that they ought to be and that each person should strive to advance himself. But the military salary starts aren't exceptionally low and the benefits add to the compensation. You don't really have a good case at the moment, as a job, a career, or a vocation the military is one of the best deals going these days. When the military, police, and fire are some of the best (or only) jobs out there for a large segment of the population, you're looking at a problem.

Would you rather be a "poorly paid" but highly benefited supply manager in the Army or an unemployed $175,000 no benefits a year VP like my cousin?

You know it always amuses me when chuckleheads like you...who only had an expereince with the military from the fringes...the outside looking in...try and don their generals stars and pontificate to the rest of us about how life in the military really is and how easy we have it compared the "real world".

You sound like some fucking sheep that doesn't think for themselves and just repeats what some idiot talking head tells them to think and say.

txradioguy
07-03-2012, 09:17 AM
I pinched this off Facebook. My first thought was 'that should say Obama', and that would be good. The reality though, is that Obama will be out (sooner rather than later) but the media we're stuck with. Wouldn't it be grand if the media supported the troops and called the Executive Branch and Congress (and it looks like the SCOTUS too) to the carpet and spoke FOR America's heroes instead of dumping on them so much?

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/559175_379706132083558_1085835960_n.jpg

Obama...Kerry...Novatwit...wee wee thinksmall...insert the Libtard name you want....and the picture is still just as vaild.

Gina
07-03-2012, 04:53 PM
Obama...Kerry...Novatwit...wee wee thinksmall...insert the Libtard name you want....and the picture is still just as vaild.

Yup. I pinched this one off Facebook too. :love_heart:

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/425174_379996545387850_136923125_n.jpg

Odysseus
07-03-2012, 05:23 PM
It is pathetic isn't it? I remember my brother-in-law's wife being so embarrassed to be using an EBT card to buy groceries for their kids while her husband was getting shot at thousands of miles away.

I also remember O bumblers remark that he was "proud generally" of our troops. They deserve so much more in a commander in chief.

Yeah, we know how the left feels about us, "generally," and it doesn't warm our hearts.


The liberal idea seems to be to make it so unappealing to join the military, that we won't have a big enough military to go to war. War is against liberal policy, at least the moonbat wing. Obama is a DUmmie I think. Remember, he was going to make the world love us again so we don't really need the military yanno. :rolleyes:

No, the liberal idea is to make it unappealing to stay in the military. The left wants to purge anybody who isn't PC enough to survive their program, so that the remainder will be more like other government workers. They have no problem with a large military, they just want us to be a tool of their policies.


That's hardly the entire picture. Starting salaries are low, as we are told that they ought to be and that each person should strive to advance himself. But the military salary starts aren't exceptionally low and the benefits add to the compensation. You don't really have a good case at the moment, as a job, a career, or a vocation the military is one of the best deals going these days. When the military, police, and fire are some of the best (or only) jobs out there for a large segment of the population, you're looking at a problem.

First, it is the entire picture. Second, we don't do it for the money, but we do resent it when our efforts aren't appreciated. And while the salaries aren't "exceptionally" low, they are extremely low in relation to what is expected. The average Soldier's duty day starts with a 05:30 PT formation, which entails at least an hour of exercise. By the time you start your job, we've been at ours for three hours, and the duty day usually ends at 17:00, unless you're in a staff position, in which case, it ends when you've completed your tasks. When you are doing OPS, your day might continue until that PT formation, if things are hectic enough. And, that doesn't take things like staff duty, or other details, into account. In fact, when I was in basic training, my drill sergeant joked that we got paid 24/7, but when I did the math, that worked out to about a dollar per hour. Saying that out loud got me some push-ups, but that was my own fault.


Would you rather be a "poorly paid" but highly benefited supply manager in the Army or an unemployed $175,000 no benefits a year VP like my cousin?

You're comparing apples to gold bricks. We're about to kick 90,000 Soldiers to the curb in the next round of draw-downs, and that doesn't include what might happen if sequestration kicks in, so the real question is how long those 90,000 troops are going to be able to survive unemployment on what they've managed to sock away? Unless your cousin lived way outside of his means, he's probably not doing too badly, and if he does end up hurting, like those troops will be, then at least he didn't have to spend the last few years of his life overseas for extended deployments, getting shot at, or otherwise having to deal with the daily grind that we put up with for far less. Pardon me if he doesn't flip my give-a-$#i+ switch into the on position.

Novaheart
07-03-2012, 10:11 PM
We're about to kick 90,000 Soldiers to the curb in the next round of draw-downs, and that doesn't include what might happen if sequestration kicks in, so the real question is how long those 90,000 troops are going to be able to survive unemployment on what they've managed to sock away?

Is America supposed to have a military for defense or an imperial standing army?

m00
07-04-2012, 12:23 AM
You don't really have a good case at the moment, as a job, a career, or a vocation the military is one of the best deals going these days.

No. Not unless you are a contractor. Actually in the military? No. Now, if you put in 20 years and retire, I think it can be a nice because you can go live somewhere dirt cheap with no local economy and the checks are coming from the government so you have a solidly fixed income. But I don't think any job that involves "getting shot at in the middle east" can be considered a good deal strictly as an economic bargain.


When the military, police, and fire are some of the best (or only) jobs out there for a large segment of the population, you're looking at a problem.

I'm pretty embarrassed as an American that you lump in military and the civilian police. Police don't get deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. And they make more money by a LOT. Oh, and they don't sign away their rights. Oh, and US civilians aren't covered by the Geneva convention, so there's no need for cops to play nice. What's messed up is that I have more rights as a "person of interest" and suspected combatant in Afghanistan than being suspected of smoking pot in my basement in any state in the US. So the military has to play with one hand tied behind their backs, on top of everything else.

Odysseus
07-04-2012, 01:40 AM
Is America supposed to have a military for defense or an imperial standing army?

We're hardly an imperial army, but we do need a standing force, and that force has to be able to project power outside of CONUS. If nothing else, we have overseas possessions that we need to maintain secure sea lanes to. We also need to ensure the safety of our interests overseas, and protect our citizens throughout the world.

Besides, we don't have a military for defense. We have a military for the promotion of diversity and providing a petrie dish for social engineers to experiment in. Fighting wars is much less important than Muslim outreach, ensuring that gay Soldiers don't feel put upon or any of the other idiotic distractions that we have to deal with because politicians don't understand what we do or why we need to do it.

txradioguy
07-04-2012, 03:32 AM
Is America supposed to have a military for defense or an imperial standing army?

Do you want a military trained and ready to fight Islamic extremism and terrorism at a moments notice or one that doesn't have enough fuel, parts and manpower to get the vehicles out of the motor pool?

Novaheart
07-04-2012, 08:34 AM
Do you want a military trained and ready to fight Islamic extremism and terrorism at a moments notice or one that doesn't have enough fuel, parts and manpower to get the vehicles out of the motor pool?

What I want is considered murderous, maniacal, and horrendous by Genghis Khan standards. The piece of equipment I admire most is the Israeli armored bulldozer and a crop duster full of advanced chemicals for population reduction. But what I want doesn't mean much.

As my Uncle (Army and Air Force lifer) used to say, "Everyone bitches about Uncle Sugar but no one quits him." or something like that. You guys like to vent, so enjoy!

DumbAss Tanker
07-04-2012, 09:27 AM
Is America supposed to have a military for defense or an imperial standing army?

Certainly one of your dumber posts. If it was for the purpose of an imperial standing army, we're doing a totally piss-poor job of it, because the size of the Army (Especially after the coming harrowing) is just about sufficient to maintain the institutuional and training base and take on one piss-ant brushfire war somewhere in the world at a time.

You can't go out and rent or buy an army when you need one. It's a lesson that has been demonstrated over and over back to the Punic Wars, but one our own form of government seems uniquely ill-equipped to understand and implement. Probably due to voters like you, really.

wasp69
07-06-2012, 10:49 AM
Would you rather be a "poorly paid" but highly benefited supply manager in the Army or an unemployed $175,000 no benefits a year VP like my cousin?

When was the last time your cousin was ordered into a compartment with burning fuel oil? Can your cousin tell us what a 7.62 x 39 mm round sounds like as it whizzes past his head? When has your cousin had to have rapid solutions to impossible problems to prevent from losing his life? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the answer is "never".

Really, really stupid analogy, and one spoken from the perspective of "not the first fucking clue".


And you know why these guys like to start so early and end the day so early? Golf.

How would you know? Were you stationed with them?


Is America supposed to have a military for defense or an imperial standing army?

Are you so ignorant as to not know the type of world we live in today, how fast things happen and how quickly we need to respond to protect interests (not just American) or are you purposely being an obtuse fool?

Maybe you should learn from those who live it and keep your trap shut when it comes to things about which you have no idea, hmmm?