Those pesky democrats supporting our troops again. . .

[chomerics]

I also don't understand why Democrats would want to encourage more people to join the arm forces.

:doh: This is how you spin it??? I was wondering how the righties would say this wasn't good :doh:

Maybe if we HAD enough troops to begin with Iraq wouldn't be in the complete mess it is now, did you ever think that??? People have states all ALONG the problem is we don't have enough troops, Kerry Platformed on adding to the size of the military, and then when *gasp* having more troops works, you want to say we are spending too much money anyway :doh:

what a effing joke.

[chipwhich]

Chom,

Regardless of openlefts spin on life....even you are smart enough to know the Dems have to do this in the election year. It's politics my friend. Don't credit them for anything they wouldn't do if obama were elected.

[Fergasun]

:doh: This is how you spin it??? I was wondering how the righties would say this wasn't good :doh:

Maybe if we HAD enough troops to begin with Iraq wouldn't be in the complete mess it is now, did you ever think that??? People have states all ALONG the problem is we don't have enough troops, Kerry Platformed on adding to the size of the military, and then when *gasp* having more troops works, you want to say we are spending too much money anyway :doh:

what a effing joke.

Tongue in cheek... I guess they just want more dumb kids stuck in Iraq... or they know that if there are more troops more parents will whine and ask for their kids back like that idiot old lady... even though their kids themselves volunteer. I still think $52 Billion is a lot of money. I'd rather support the troops with $52 Billion in planes, ships, and guns than education... but that's just me.

Senators, however, are balking at the one-half of a percentage point increase in tax rates on income topping $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples. At the same time, Republicans and business groups say the plan amounts to an increase in taxes on small businesses that pay taxes at the same rates as individuals.

Also included in the Bill.

Besides the GI benefits, Democrats have tacked on a plan to give 13 more weeks of unemployment checks to people whose benefits have expired and 13 weeks beyond that in states with especially high unemployment rates.

So, let's hold our breaths and see if this passes in the Senate and survives a possible veto as well...

[#98QBKiller]

He wants you to click on his link to a you tube video, it is a epic fail

it is only because he fell for the trick, and he is trying to get someone else to do the same thing It appears to be the Rick Roll video, seeing DanT's post.

That was an epic fail

[Redskins Diehard]

when you are on duty, which happens once a week, you are working and on call. when you are on a ship or a squadron you are ALWAYS on call.

In 94 when the President of North Korea died I had just gotten home from a 6 month deployment and was not even home a week before I was called back to go there.

If you are forward moving like most of the Marines are right now, they can definitely calll you back to duty.

Overpaid? Where were you stationed that you can even say they were paid enough? I know a lot of military people who are still qualifying for WIC and other forms of help. That is why you have so many single people marrying some friend of the opposite sex for the money. It is too damn hard to try and make it on just what the Gov pays you.

I did not, and never would, argue that service members(SM) are overpaid. I said that to compute wages based on a 24 hour work day, a 7 day work week, and a 365 day work year is not a valid method. There are definitely some days where SM's work 24 hours or close to it...just not all of them.

http://perdiem.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/bah.html

That link will take you to the BAH table, enter in a few zipcodes and you see that while basic pay is constat no matter the geographic region but that particular benefit is adjusted, and sometimes fairly significantly.

I spent my entire military career in relatively low cost of living areas...Savannah, GA and Fayetteville, NC.

There are people in the military that are in financial trouble. In my experience it is usually the young, married with children troops. And I did not know a single troop that got married for the extra money. Not saying there aren't some out there, just in 9 years I didn't come across one.

[Redskins Diehard]

It will always be newsworthy because of the misinformation that goes on out there. They have been supporting the troops since the 80s, they always have. There is a difference between supporting the military's bloated budget, and supporting the troops, a BIG difference.

Did the Pesky Democrats in the Senate pass the same bill?(If I remember correctly it takes both houses of Congress to send a bill to the President)

[BigMike619]

[quote name=Redskins Die

http://perdiem.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/bah.html

hard]I did not, and never would, argue that service members(SM) are overpaid. I said that to compute wages based on a 24 hour work day, a 7 day work week, and a 365 day work year is not a valid method. There are definitely some days where SM's work 24 hours or close to it...just not all of them.

That link will take you to the BAH table, enter in a few zipcodes and you see that while basic pay is constat no matter the geographic region but that particular benefit is adjusted, and sometimes fairly significantly.

I spent my entire military career in relatively low cost of living areas...Savannah, GA and Fayetteville, NC.

There are people in the military that are in financial trouble. In my experience it is usually the young, married with children troops. And I did not know a single troop that got married for the extra money. Not saying there aren't some out there, just in 9 years I didn't come across one.

Yeah, San Diego is probably one of the most costly cities in America to live in and this is where 75% of the west coast navy is at. They dont give you COLA and unless you want to live on the ship (which nobody does) or in the BEQ then you have to either get a second job or try and find wiggle room.

Well I dont know why or how you didnt meet one person who was married for the money and contract but I know a girl right now who is married to a squid. He pays her 100 a month and they are just friends. It is actually pretty common out here and I have seen it ever since I went to A school in Millington.

By clicking on your link I see that a E-3 gets $1374 a month for living off base. Now a 1 bedroom apt in SD goes for around 750-850. Utilities are going to cost you about 200. With gas , food and anything else you arent making a damn thing.

I still dont get how you can say that the military isnt on call 24 hours a day. any forward moving company or squadron has to be ready at the drop of a hat to get on a plane, ship or whatever and get to where they are needed at any given time. people I know have been called off of leave from home to go to the Gulf. People have their EAOS pushed back for at least 12 months as well. The military can and does whatever they want to you whenever they want. I witnessed it first hand and was a part of it all.

I misunderstood you when you said not overpaid.

[chomerics]

Tongue in cheek... I guess they just want more dumb kids stuck in Iraq...

Wow, this is what you think of our military :doh: sad, truly sad. . .

I still think $52 Billion is a lot of money. I'd rather support the troops with $52 Billion in planes, ships, and guns than education... but that's just me.

So in other words, you would rather the defense contractors got the money instead of the troops. . . gotcha. Hey, at least you admit you don't care about what the troops get, as long as LM, Boeing et all are getting their cut :doh:

At least we have one republican who finally admits he doesn't support the troops, but instead supports the Military Industrial Complex :thumbsup: I would rather give the money to the troops myself, and that is the democrats platform, people are usually too stupid to realize not funding LM and Boeing, does not mean they don't fund the troops, they indeed get the troops everything they can. From tuition assistance, to increased pay, to better benefits, but the republicans are the ones who try to stop it from happening.

[Redskins Diehard]

Does anyone know if the Democrats in the Senate also passed this? Until they do, WORTHLESS.

[Burgold]

The whispers that I've heard is that the Senate looks like they will pass it, but that Bush may veto.

I also wonder why only 32 Republican Reps voted for it. Even if it is being done this year more as an election move (which someone above in this thread suggested) it sounds like a pretty good deal and they are offering a mechanism to pay for it.

I wonder if the Republicans would have voted for it if there were no provision on how to pay for it.

[Fergasun]

Wow, this is what you think of our military :doh: sad, truly sad. . .

So in other words, you would rather the defense contractors got the money instead of the troops. . . gotcha. Hey, at least you admit you don't care about what the troops get, as long as LM, Boeing et all are getting their cut :doh:

At least we have one republican who finally admits he doesn't support the troops, but instead supports the Military Industrial Complex :thumbsup: I would rather give the money to the troops myself, and that is the democrats platform, people are usually too stupid to realize not funding LM and Boeing, does not mean they don't fund the troops, they indeed get the troops everything they can. From tuition assistance, to increased pay, to better benefits, but the republicans are the ones who try to stop it from happening.

This morning I thought of another use for $52 Billion... how about better health care for the troops? Also, I never said I was Republican. Also, one has to wonder about the impact this could have on education costs... adding $52B more government money to college funding pool can't help...

Again, I'm not per se against this, I just think to blanket it as "good" without further analysis and information is just wasteful spending... but then again the government is known for that... so blahblahblahblahblah... we could just use that $52B to increase their pay-scale by that much also... especially on the lower end... no?

[Redskins Diehard]

The whispers that I've heard is that the Senate looks like they will pass it, but that Bush may veto.

I also wonder why only 32 Republican Reps voted for it. Even if it is being done this year more as an election move (which someone above in this thread suggested) it sounds like a pretty good deal and they are offering a mechanism to pay for it.

I wonder if the Republicans would have voted for it if there were no provision on how to pay for it.

I will hold off on congratulating those Pesky Democrats until they actually put it in front of the President...then it is out of their hands. And I hope the bill doesn't have one of those guaranteed veto triggers attached. "We will give them educational money if you give us a timeline" or something like that.

Any whispers as to why Bush will veto? (Hoping that question isn't answered by someone that is simply going to say "he hates the troops")

[Burgold]

No, the whispers I heard had to do with budget concerns and spending too much money. The need to show fiscal restraint.

Mind you, the problem with whispers is you never know who's actually whispering or what their agenda is. The whisperer's goal may be to smear Bush and the Repubs or it may be dead on. :shrug:

[Redskins Diehard]

Yeah, San Diego is probably one of the most costly cities in America to live in and this is where 75% of the west coast navy is at. They dont give you COLA and unless you want to live on the ship (which nobody does) or in the BEQ then you have to either get a second job or try and find wiggle room.

Well I dont know why or how you didnt meet one person who was married for the money and contract but I know a girl right now who is married to a squid. He pays her 100 a month and they are just friends. It is actually pretty common out here and I have seen it ever since I went to A school in Millington.

By clicking on your link I see that a E-3 gets $1374 a month for living off base. Now a 1 bedroom apt in SD goes for around 750-850. Utilities are going to cost you about 200. With gas , food and anything else you arent making a damn thing.

I still dont get how you can say that the military isnt on call 24 hours a day. any forward moving company or squadron has to be ready at the drop of a hat to get on a plane, ship or whatever and get to where they are needed at any given time. people I know have been called off of leave from home to go to the Gulf. People have their EAOS pushed back for at least 12 months as well. The military can and does whatever they want to you whenever they want. I witnessed it first hand and was a part of it all.

I misunderstood you when you said not overpaid.

Our young single troops typically did not live out on the economy. They lived in the barracks.(the ones of recent YouTube fame) In fact, rarely did any single troop below E5 be authorized to recieve BAH. Not sure why you guys wouldn't live in the BEQ, but sure there are reasons. The guys that lived in the barracks, and ate most of their meals in the DFAC actually did alright. Not saying they were wealthy by any stretch but I think for a 19-22 year old they were doing alright. And I do recognize that trying to survive on the economy in San Diego was probably VERY difficult for any junior member of the military to make it.

I don't dispute your assertions about being on call etc. I spent my whole Army career in the 18th Airborne Corps. Quarterly rotations on 2 hour recall...and that was before 9-11. I just don't think it is accurate to compute an hourly wage based on a 24/7 work week. That also seems to be based soley on the base pay which discount the other benefits/entitlements.(For instance that 1374 is tax free. Which means it is roughly equivalent to 1700 if it were taxable at 20%.)

At the end of the day though we agree...young troops deserve a raise!

[BigMike619]

Our young single troops typically did not live out on the economy. They lived in the barracks.(the ones of recent YouTube fame) In fact, rarely did any single troop below E5 be authorized to recieve BAH. Not sure why you guys wouldn't live in the BEQ, but sure there are reasons. The guys that lived in the barracks, and ate most of their meals in the DFAC actually did alright. Not saying they were wealthy by any stretch but I think for a 19-22 year old they were doing alright. And I do recognize that trying to survive on the economy in San Diego was probably VERY difficult for any junior member of the military to make it.

I don't dispute your assertions about being on call etc. I spent my whole Army career in the 18th Airborne Corps. Quarterly rotations on 2 hour recall...and that was before 9-11. I just don't think it is accurate to compute an hourly wage based on a 24/7 work week. That also seems to be based soley on the base pay which discount the other benefits/entitlements.(For instance that 1374 is tax free. Which means it is roughly equivalent to 1700 if it were taxable at 20%.)

At the end of the day though we agree...young troops deserve a raise!

teachers, cops, military. all grossly underpaid.

[Redskins Diehard]

No, the whispers I heard had to do with budget concerns and spending too much money. The need to show fiscal restraint.

Mind you, the problem with whispers is you never know who's actually whispering or what their agenda is. The whisperer's goal may be to smear Bush and the Repubs or it may be dead on. :shrug:

Thanks for the clarification. I would never argue more benefits for troops. At this point in time though I think most additional money should be dedicated for the medical side of the VA. There are a lot of people, young people, that stand to have plenty of physical and mental issues to contend with for a long time.

[Larry]

teachers, cops, military. all grossly underpaid.

My theory on that, though, is that there are certain careers (I'd include all emergency personnel) that people are willing to do simply for their own sake.

I observe that these seem to be professions which give their members pride. That these professions aren't things that people do, but are things which people are.

[BigMike619]

My theory on that, though, is that there are certain careers (I'd include all emergency personnel) that people are willing to do simply for their own sake.

I observe that these seem to be professions which give their members pride. That these professions aren't things that people do, but are things which people are.

I agree. I didnt realize it until I joined but I have always been military minded. When I played sports I was always excited to be amongst the team. I was very serious when it came to training and my job but I was a big time partier outside.

I always felt like I was doing something for the greater good of my family and the look in my father's face was payment enough for me.:2cents:

[rtbasye]

dats gud. weez be needin sum edumucation. thanx a buncch yoo deemocrats. i'm suure thur wuz no alteeerior mowtive heerree.

damn, that was hard to type in backwoods speak.

[Ghost of]

Teachers, our propagandists-en-loco-parentis and cops the Standing Army the Founders feared UNDERpaid?

Really? A profession whose dangerousness ranks beneath gardeners and our intrepid fishermen?

No. Our troops are underpaid but that's it. The rest are well-paid, considering they pay no effective taxes and are given undue praise for their rather inadequate performances as regards education and public safety. Not all their fault, really.

A home-schooled Abigail Adams is far superior to any teacher I've EVER MET in my life and the lowliest patriot at Valley Forge outranks any police officer who delights in no-knocking his fellow citizens (an executable offense, I'm sure, in another era) or pulling them over for 'infractions.'

Don't get me started on firemen, who are physically brave, but a waste of money in most locales.

[Slateman]

Wow, this is what you think of our military :doh: sad, truly sad. . .

Choms, you would be sadly disappointed by the level of intelligence in the average enlisted person. Seriously, we're talking barely passed high school here.

Pretty much most Marines I live with are concerned with three things:

1. The next piece of tail

2. Their next drink

3. Payday (for the previous two)

As for 24 hours a day . . . eh sort of. Its kind of like being a firefighter. You have to be around, but you might not actually be doing anything.

I work from 0600 - 1600 with about 2 hours for lunch/errands/PT/phone watch, ect. Its not bad. Pretty boring. Nothing special. Where you work insane hours is on deployment.

[Destino]

When is the last time you saw republicans do anything for enlisted men in the armed forces? Before the war DEMOCRATS argued that the troop levels were too low. After the fact we found out that generals were making the same point while Bush and Rumsfeld ignored them. Duing the war DEMOCRATS made a stink about body armor and armored vehicles, two things Rumsfeld's defense department was slow to provide. Now DEMOCRATS are the ones pushing through pay increases and supporting shorter tours of duty.

Republicans pay lip service to the war.

It's pretty damn clear which party SUPPORTS the troops and which SUPPORTS a war.

[Seabee1973]

I agree with you BigMike....I grew up in the military...if it wasn't the fact that my mom worked as well we would've had a tough time making ends meet.

I grew a military brat only my dad working and my mom stayed at home till my sister went to school then she became a substitute teacher. We had no problems. I live quite comfortably right now with quite a bit of savings having paid off 3 vehicles early

[Seabee1973]

When is the last time you saw republicans do anything for enlisted men in the armed forces? Before the war DEMOCRATS argued that the troop levels were too low. After the fact we found out that generals were making the same point while Bush and Rumsfeld ignored them. Duing the war DEMOCRATS made a stink about body armor and armored vehicles, two things Rumsfeld's defense department was slow to provide. Now DEMOCRATS are the ones pushing through pay increases and supporting shorter tours of duty.

Republicans pay lip service to the war.

It's pretty damn clear which party SUPPORTS the troops and which SUPPORTS a war.

Republicans dont pay lip service half the bills that get defeated are attached to bills that have the get the troops out of iraq now so that it appears that trhe republicans are against the military.

[Destino]

Republicans dont pay lip service half the bills that get defeated are attached to bills that have the get the troops out of iraq now so that it appears that trhe republicans are against the military.

I stand by my position. If it comes to feeding money into the beast that is the military industrial complex the GOP is all over it. If it's raising the pay or benefits of the men actually doing the fighting the GOP is no where to be found. Look at McCain's record on military benefits... those were all attached to Iraq deadlines. The GOP has a terrible record when it comes to the PEOPLE in the military. They don't mind making million dollar missles though so long as their getting some lobbying money and golden parachutes out of it.