George Bush plans to cut military pay by 3.5%?

Anyee

Diabloii.Net Member
George Bush plans to cut military pay by 3.5%?

This article makes it seem that he's doing just that. Can anyone else back this up?

If so...wow, that's lousy. Force the kids overseas, get their limbs shot off, and make sure they have less money waiting at home.
 

publius

Diabloii.Net Member
It seems like this quote:

The proposed 3.5 percent increase in military pay is welcome at a time when extended tours threaten to make recruiting more difficult.
suggests that they are suggesting a pay increase? It seems like the editorial is suggesting budget cuts in other places.

OT: I personally disagree with the suggested budget cuts in the next generation of fighter planes, as I suspect the author is living too much in the future if he/she thinks pilot-less drones are ready to be a substitute for ordinary fighter planes.
 

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
I'm not going to register just to read it.

Considering that rag's recent history of lying reporters, I can't believe it. I demand a second opinion! :p
 

Drosselmeier

Diabloii.Net Member
the article said:
The proposed 3.5 percent increase in military pay is welcome at a time when extended tours threaten to make recruiting more difficult.
I´ll admit to being a tad drunk and more than a little sleepy, but I think most people will agree with me when I say that the article makes it seem like he´s planning on raising military salaries by 3.5%, not cutting them.


 

guspasho

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg Head said:
I'm not going to register just to read it.

Considering that rag's recent history of lying reporters, I can't believe it. I demand a second opinion! :p
It is a tad hypocritical, isn't it, to be so disbelieving of one organization that had liars in it's employ and to be so uncritically credulous of another?

Sorry Anyee, it does appear to be a 3.5% increase, this time.
 

felstorm

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg Head said:
I'm not going to register just to read it.

Considering that rag's recent history of lying reporters, I can't believe it. I demand a second opinion! :p
Opinion?

How about some facts for a change?

Everyone and their goddamned cousin has an opinion. And you shouldn't run a government based upon ultimately personal opinions.

It was George Bush's "opinion" that Iraq was "dangerous" to the US. And now it's being "revealed" (SURPRISE!) that he and his advisers were a bunch of lying sacks of ****.

But we didn't see that coming.

And NOW he kicks wounded vets in the groin, or stump if you want to get technical.

Compassionate conservative my ***.

More like Texas Good Ole Boy.
 

Hellfire

Diabloii.Net Member
publius said:
It seems like this quote:



suggests that they are suggesting a pay increase? It seems like the editorial is suggesting budget cuts in other places.

OT: I personally disagree with the suggested budget cuts in the next generation of fighter planes, as I suspect the author is living too much in the future if he/she thinks pilot-less drones are ready to be a substitute for ordinary fighter planes.

So Anyee, now that you found out Bush is actually increasing their pay, are you going to praise him for that?


*doesn't expect an answer*
 

Silvermyst

Diabloii.Net Member
Hellfire said:
I need something to do while waiting for WOW beta.
Sorry for the OTness, but my god! Please don't tell me I'll be running into the likes of you in that game.

Edit: just to make my post less spammy/flamy, could anyone post a quote of the whole article? I aswell as others aren't registered there, and due to overwhelming laziness can't be bothered to sign up. Thanky :xsmile4:
 

Underseer

Diabloii.Net Member
Hellfire said:
So Anyee, now that you found out Bush is actually increasing their pay, are you going to praise him for that?


*doesn't expect an answer*
Considering that the Bush administration has made even more cuts to military pay and benefits than even the Clinton administration? Not on your life. Clinton really angered me on this topic, but Bush has angered me even more. Even before Clinton, a shocking number of military families were surviving only because of the help military families tend to provide each other.

I still remember when my dad was stationed at Yakota AFB, a little boy committed suicide because he thought it would get his siblings more food. The community on base was devastated. The erosion of pay and privilidges that has been going on since the end of the Cold War is a really emotional topic for me.

PS-- We got our biggest troll back! Yaay! It's been a lot less amusing around here without your hateful, self-righteous proclamations. It's good to know the ultimate representative of conservatives and Christians has returned to tell us what they're really all about!
 

Drosselmeier

Diabloii.Net Member
Misspending Military Dollars

the Bush administration were at all serious about fiscal responsibility, it would have sent Congress a Defense Department budget that reflected the real costs of military operations, cut out cold-war-era programs and focused on the things the military needs in the 21st century. Regrettably, none of that happened. The budget plan is inaccurate, anachronistic and laden with pork, and Congress is only likely to make things worse.

Mr. Bush is proposing to increase basic Pentagon spending by more than $20 billion over last year's budget, and that does not even count operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which could add a further $50 billion when the bill is presented to Congress after Election Day. Add that money and the nuclear weapons programs run by the Energy Department to the Pentagon's $402 billion request, and the total will approach half a trillion dollars.

Military pay is not the place to make cuts, and the Pentagon needs money for promising new weapons like pilotless aircraft. It needs to invest in whatever ammunition, armor and transport vehicles are required to fight in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. What begs for drastic surgery are the expensive weapons programs predicated on the unlikely notion of a conflict between two technologically advanced superpowers. Cutting these unneeded programs might weaken the profit outlook for defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. It would not weaken the war against terrorism.

The biggest cuts should come in the three advanced-tactical and Joint Strike Fighter aircraft: the Air Force's F-22, the Navy's F-18 and the shared F-35. The Pentagon plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two decades on these planes, which are designed to replace older models that are already superior to anything any other country can put in the air. They would be ideal for dogfights against the equally futuristic MIG's the Soviet Union might be building if it still existed. But in real places like Afghanistan and Iraq, they have serious disadvantages. Unlike helicopters, they cannot hover over battlefields. Unlike unpiloted drones, they place fliers' lives at risk. They have restricted flying ranges and require expensive airborne tankers for refueling. The Air Force's excessive dependence on short-range fighters also forces Washington to cut deals with dubious allies for bases near shifting combat zones.

The proposed 3.5 percent increase in military pay is welcome at a time when extended tours threaten to make recruiting more difficult. So is the $2 billion for pilotless aircraft like the Predator, which proved its value in Afghanistan. Harder to justify is increasing Air Force spending by 9.6 percent while holding the Army to a 1.8 percent increase. The Army has borne the brunt of recent fighting and is stretched to the breaking point.

Another suitable target for cutting is the more than $10 billion budgeted for missile defense. While a system that worked would be worth having, the administration is wrong to rush the current unreliable technology into service. Operations money should be cut. Research and testing should go forward with more modest budgets.

Congress has had scant appetite for challenging the administration on military spending, especially since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The American people are ill served by this passivity. The strong defense everybody wants will not come from throwing ever larger sums into the wrong weapons. It can come only from spending responsible amounts on the right priorities.
 

Satans_Advocate

Diabloii.Net Member
I'm noticing a trend with the bush administration in that they increase taxes on the the things that dont matter and they decrease taxes on the things that do matter.

Isn't this the opposite of what a fiscally responsible conservative is supposed to stand for?
 

Sergeant

Diabloii.Net Member
Anyee said:
Yay, I was wrong.
That is PURE SIGNATURE GOLD. If that isn't quoteable, I don't know what is!

Yes Anyee, thankfully it is a raise. I mean, if there were no housing or subsistence allowances, most active duty military wouldn't make it with basic pay. We're like teachers and vice versa, neither profession is paid near enough for the job they do, or enough to be expected to do it well but, for the most part, we do it anyway.

It sucks but the intangibles make it worth it.
 
Top