Veto Threat over 0.5% Military Pay Increase

Damn. I don't even know where to start. (4.00 / 1)

There is no excuse for this.  None.  This is truly reprehensible.  

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM CDT

In the news today (0.00 / 0)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In an unprecedented move, the Federal Reserve Board is lending as much as $85 billion to rescue crumbling insurer American International Group, officials announced Tuesday evening.

An eventual liquidation of the company is most likely, senior Fed officials said. But with the government loan, the company won't have to go through a tumultuous fire sale.

So we have $85 BILLION to keep AIG hanging on a little while longer, but we don't have a fraction of that for our troops?

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:24:37 AM CDT

Seriously, how do these people sleep at night? n/t (0.00 / 0)

Make wars unprofitable and you make them impossible.
~A. Philip Randolph

---

by: CarissaPicard @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:37:47 AM CDT

The exact way they sleep is the subject of much debate (4.00 / 3)

Some say they sleep in coffins, others say they sleep upside down.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:49:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Something about a gift horse (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that a 3.4% pay raise isn't supporting the troops but a 3.9% would be.

I knew what the pay scale was when I signed up and getting paid more money is always nice, but not the support I'm looking for. I want to be supported with feasible policy, smart strategy, body armor, more training ammo, veterans' health care, and respect. I'd have done this job for free, and I still would.

---

by: Ben @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 13:26:00 PM CDT

True. (0.00 / 0)

I want to be supported with feasible policy, smart strategy, body armor, more training ammo, veterans' health care, and respect.

But you wont get that from the administration either.

---

by: Brian McGough @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 13:36:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think it's more complicated than that. (0.00 / 0)

And maybe I should have elaborated a little, but this isn't simply complaining about a few bucks.  Currently, the military is too small for what needs to be done.  Contractors are able to poach highly-qualified service members from the military.  Entrance standards have been lowered considerably.  Why?  Because the military isn't as competitive as it needs to be.

If you want to raise and maintain the best military in the world, you're going to have to pay for it.  And we're clearly not doing that now.  Sure, most of us would've worked for free--if we could swing it.  But that's unrealistic for the majority of soldiers and marines who enlist.  You know the deal.

Right now, we're nowhere close to being competitive with the contractors.  And if you tried to calculate how much troops deserved based on the hours they worked, we're not even close to regular civilian jobs.  If you paid a PFC $10 an hour for his or her service during the course of a year-long deployment, that would equate to $84,000 a year.  I mean, this makes no sense to me economically.  They don't make anything close to $84K.  How can you expect to recruit the best and the brightest with the kinds of incentives currently in place?  

It's a life of sacrifice.  I get that.  But I also decided that it wasn't worth it for me.  And so did you.  And so have a lot of other people.  We have to make this job worth it for people, otherwise we're in some serious shit.  Closing the pay gap would help--along with everything else you mentioned.

---

by: Brandon Friedman @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 14:06:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

WOW (0.00 / 0)

I know too many soldiers that can't make their bills already and this just makes me sick...

Yes, I am the Queen...

---

by: Queen of the Universe @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 13:32:03 PM CDT

The last Ft. Hood soldier that I helped... (0.00 / 0)

SOLD PLASMA for gas money!  It was a few days before payday and I called his wife to figure out where he was and she said it very matter of fact like, "oh, he's selling his plasma for gas money."  You know, as if that's where everyone is four days before payday.

I swear to God, if I hadn't known them personally, I would never have believed it.

Make wars unprofitable and you make them impossible.
~A. Philip Randolph

---

by: CarissaPicard @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 13:38:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I remember those days (0.00 / 0)

I was with 1/9 Cav at Fort Hood from 1998-2000.  I remember donating plasma for my birthday present.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 14:41:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sadly, they could decrease military pay and still have high retention... (0.00 / 0)

It's not like most soldiers are able to leave the military and find jobs these days with the economy we've got now.  

This administration couldn't care less about those serving in uniform.  Hell, that's not even keeping up with the rate of inflation....3.4% is a pay cut.    

---

by: Wolverine @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 14:09:07 PM CDT

What is there (0.00 / 0)

to even debate here. The bailouts are unconstitutional in my book. The military pay raise is not.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 14:41:08 PM CDT

I'm afraid ... (0.00 / 0)

a whole lot of Americans live at, near or below the poverty line.  There are people who never see a raise unless there is a federal minimum wage increase, and that happens one helluva lot less often than government workers get raises.  Take what a given service member may have risked or is risking out of the equation, if possible.  I know this is difficult, but try.

I'd happily pay everyone in combat $100k a year.  Smell the fracking irony, 'cause unlike every other war, the perverted individuals running the country have found a new way to fuck all of us without a kiss, pardon my French:  you and I are paying tens upon tens of thousands contractors at least that much.  War = profit and profit is their god.  Even a soldier's wounds and need for care is just another profit center for some corporation.  

You might ask yourself why it is that they choose not pay the service members $100k.  They could, absolutely, but there's no incentive-money in that for those who control those in power.  To borrow someone else's phrase, we're bitching about the monkey when we perhaps should focus on who the monkey's keeper/organ grinder is.  

The taxpayers are being sold out for hundreds of billions (well, trillions if you count everything), and people are dying in exchange for power and a measly few hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions (if that).  Only difference between our country and many others is that it takes far less to buy the ability to dictate U.S. government policy.  

News flash:  there are citizens in this country without running water, never mind money to buy a car or put gas in it.  There are citizens who go to bed hungry every single night, assuming they even have a bed.  Think about that for a second.  It's kinda difficult to maintain outrage about a 3.4% vs. 3.9% raise, given the givens.  (Yes, I understand there are plenty of military families on public assistance.  As hard as it may be to believe, their lives could in fact be worse.)

I understand the reasons behind the WTF sentiment -- I really do -- but the bottom line is unless and until folks start rejecting the notion that unfettered capitalism is the be-all-end-all and the propaganda that the world will fall apart if we go in a more populist direction, nothing will change.  

If they can win a majority of votes and still get away with treating people like a disposable commodity, they will.  They'll talk a lot of smack to the contrary, but reality speaks for itself.  

Hopefully that's the only rant I have in me for the day.  

---

by: Fxston @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 15:18:05 PM CDT

It's fuzzy dice math (0.00 / 0)

According to Rummy, troops aren't disposable, they're "fungible"

And meanwhile Rummy gets fat paychex sitting on Boards of corporations and speaking engagements...on what I wonder? How to (not) Succeed in War without really trying.

---

by: 911witness @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 15:35:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How about (0.00 / 0)

civilized anarchy. That works for me. The less government power, the better. Instead of changing one government with another, lets just take as much of their power away as possible. Then it won't matter much who gets elected.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 15:43:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's hard to know what it will take ... (0.00 / 0)

but some form of anarchy/revolution does come to mind.  Not sure where-how we lost that spirit, but it's definitely diminished.  The little bastards won't go quietly though, so I'm not sure being civilized will cut it.  

If the powers that be manage to steal a third national election in a row, that just might serve as a little more inspiration.  (I know, some blissfully ignorant folks are saying, Er, third?  What the frack is the girl talking about?  

Dismantling the electoral college system and making it a straight-up popular vote system would be a start, as would ensuring that there's a mechanism for national referenda by which we could recall-fire the bastards without having to rely on the pantywaists in Congress growing a pair.  (Say what you want about California, at least they can get rid of the person in charge if they like.)  Good luck with that, Mary. I know, I know.  

I'm already in DC, so storming the Capitol would be a short walk.  Question is whether my only company would be the the "9/11 was an inside job" freaks or card-carrying anarchists who normally come to protest the IMF/World Bank meetings.  Those kids actually see what the corporatists have done to the global community, whereas I'm a selfish bitch currently focusing only on my own country.  I need to change that mind-set, I guess.  No man is an island and all that.

---

by: Fxston @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 16:06:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

whatever route is chosen, I am for maximization of individual liberty and minimization of government power. For instance, I would like to see the government run social programs and our interventionist foreign policy go away, as they are both a threat to individual liberty in my book. I actually would not mind seeing real, unrestrained capitalism, but that is hardly what we have here.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 17:14:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Insofar as the corporatists are willing to bail out ... (0.00 / 0)

each other, yes, that's not pure, unadulterated capitalism.  They're fine with socialist/populist principles when it benefits them.  Notice they refuse to do little more than pay lip service to helping out the uneducated consumer, a chunk of whom were essentially defrauded and scammed.  

The corporatists are cool with paying off what I consider to be nothing more than glorified gambling debt incurred by the highly sophisticated thieves, er, entities who rode the profit train long after they knew it was headed toward a cliff.  

They argue that to do nothing would be calamitous.  Maybe so, but what they aren't saying is they're fine with whatever happens so long as the effects are felt primarily by the middle and lower income citizens.  Anything that might cause the tsunami to endanger their interests (a la the Great Depression) is entirely unthinkable.  They don't want to share the pain.

Trust me, you don't want zero regulation on capitalism.  They've tried that little experiment elsewhere -- though it normally requires installing military juntas or dictatorships to force it on the people, which is why it hasn't yet come to our shores.  Sure, there's a small segment of the population that becomes positively stinking rich, but the "trickle down" theory has been amply demonstated as being bullshit propaganda as it relates to most of the population.  

Right now we're seeing a good example of what is born of the notion that more deregulation is better, thanks to the machinations of Phil Gramm and his ilk.  What you have without regulatory oversight is greed without limit, and no good has ever come of that.  The legislative equivalent was Darth Cheney having a situation as close to heaven as that soulless troll will ever see:  an easily manipulated president and Congress primarily populated with like-minded creeps or impotent, cowardly nincompoops.  There are a precious few who do what their voters sent them there to do and, gasp, uphold their oaths, but I'm afraid they are in the minority.  

No lasting good comes from extremes, right or left.  

... and here I was thinking I'd had my one rant for the day.  Go figure.

Mary a/k/a Fxston

---

by: Fxston @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 18:30:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I see a solution (0.00 / 0)

here. How about we dial everything all the way back to the constitution and its amendments? Every law will then be thoroughly evaluated to determine its standing within the framework of the constitution. If any law is deemed unconstitutional, then they can get a constitutional amendment or let it die. Then we live with whatever we end up with.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 18:51:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not anarchy, Democracy, a quaint concept. (0.00 / 0)

And to think we got started by King George double-taxing us on Tea! Imagine what would happen if George employed "shock and awe" instead ( well subsequently he did, but the shot heard round the world would be more like a drive-by shooting today )

---

by: 911witness @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:55:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm afraid that both true democracy and truly unfettered capitalism ... (0.00 / 0)

that the far right wants cannot, I repeat, cannot co-exist.  It simply doesn't work.  We've seen what capitalism/greed without any regulation does, time and again.  

Ask any average Russian, who long ago had the chance at democracy yanked away almost as soon as it was born while the WASPs/world banks basically blackmailed Yeltsin and refused to loan the country money until he did what they demanded in terms of economic "reform".  He was only to happy to operate as a dictator to accomplish this, it turns out.  The people were intent on kicking him out and he was being impeached, so with our blessing he declared martial law, dissolved and stormed parliament, declaring the new constitution null and void.  Aside from a monarchist system, this is what is and always has been required for truly unfettered capitalism to exist.  

Meanwhile, the world press bought the bullshit propaganda that it was the old-line Communists who were trying to hold back democracy.  (Cue the Tom Hanks scene in "Money Pit" where he's laughing hysterically after the bathtub falls through the floor.)  Now the Russians live in an authoritarian state, and the average Joe is killing themselves and drinking themselves to death far faster than they did under Communism.  There is estimated to be upwards of 3.5 million homeless children in Russia.  Children.

What I love is McCain saying anything to win; if someone assured him he'd win if he killed his family, I'm starting to think he'd give it some thought.  Never mind the gas tax holiday nonsense that would have put tens of thousands out of work while it lasted, Mr. Deregulation himself is now suddenly pandering to the masses that he'll fix the greed machine.  Was that what were you doing all the last quarter century, never mind when you were head of the Commerce Committee?  The man has become a craven whore, and it's sad as hell.  

---

by: Fxston @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:13:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then again (0.00 / 0)

our founding fathers weren't necessarily that high on democracy, either. Jefferson saw it as the 51 percent imposing their will on the 49 percent. We seek to bring freedom to the Middle East, but some of those tribesman enjoy more freedom than we ever did. As for Putin, his own people sure seem to love him.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 13:37:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We haven't sought to bring ... (0.00 / 0)

 "freedom to the Middle East."  That's just a talking point.  

"As for Putin, his own people sure seem to love him."

Don't believe the hype.  Not sure why folks don't get that there's no such thing as truly free press in Russia (and I wouldn't trust our press to find their collective ass with both hands).

"Then again our founding fathers weren't necessarily that high on democracy, either. "

At least not intending it to apply to everyone, but you have to remember that as a practical matter they never truly intended for more than a few dozen male WASPs to control things.  The descendants of this most successful gang in the history of mankind have essentially been controlling what happens in the world for over a thousand years.   I use the word "gang" for lack of a better word.  

---

by: Fxston @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 14:39:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I dunno, (0.00 / 0)

maybe the Russian people have greater concerns than free presses, etc. Maybe the Russians seek something different than what an American would seek. As for controlling the world, I dont think the United States  controls nearly what it likes to think it does. As for the Founding Fathers, it would depend on which ones. I firmly believe Jefferson, Madison, Paine, etc sought freedom. Hamilton's crew on the other hand, not so sure about them. Then again, when you leave the power to the people, the cards can fall any number of ways. People are flawed. No getting around that one. As far as freedom in the Middle East goes, I don't think we seek to really bring that. Just pointing out the irony there.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 15:22:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 0)

"Maybe the Russians seek something different than what an American would seek."

As I pointed out, they sought democracy.  They didn't get it.  They're kinda used to getting screwed ... as are we, at this point.

"... I dont think the United States  controls nearly what it likes to think it does."

I wasn't referring to the U.S. government as such.  :)

---

by: Fxston @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 16:08:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think (0.00 / 0)

the Russians sought something other than Communism and they do have a democracy. The Russian brand of democracy is simply nothing resembling Western democracy. All that aside, Putin's approval rating is nearly double the combined approval rating of the US Congress and President Bush.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 16:15:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This shifting right-right-right of the replies is a little annoying .... (0.00 / 0)

:)

"... the Russians ... do have a democracy."

No offense, but I can only conclude that you need to widen your research-reading horizon.  :)

Authoritarianism by any other name (keep calling it "democracy" if you will) is still authoritarianism/a police state.  The Russians are quite used to it, and considering what they went through with Yeltsin forward, I'm not surprised that their experience with what they were told was "democracy" left a really terrible taste in their mouths.

"... Putin's approval rating is nearly double the combined approval rating of the US Congress and President Bush."

And you think those ratings are accurate because ... ?  In any event, I dare say they have an even larger number of "low information" citizens than we have.  They're used to doing what they're told.  :)  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Watch this, but pay close attention to the 3-minute mark and you'll get a laugh.  :)

I bet if you conducted polls in North Korea, the government would be proclaimed very popular indeed.  

---

by: Fxston @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 16:44:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Come on (0.00 / 0)

Kasparov is one man. There are still Americans who think GW Bush is a fantastic President. Hell, there Americans who think Che Guevara was an iconic leader. Putin never had 100 percent approval rating. On the other hand, Putin was elected. As for the Russians being less informed, I wouldn't be so sure there. Having personally dealt with numerous supposedly "Third World" people, they sure seem to know alot more than us Americans give them credit for, and I am sorry to say that we have been learning that the hard way. As for Putin, I reccomend you take a quick look at this

http://www.goehner.com/russinf...

It should explain alot. Then again, even if he does turn out to be an evil dictator, we are in no position to do anything about it. I think we can actually agree on that.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 17:12:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I realize ... (0.00 / 0)

that Kasparov is one man.  But he's one of very few who gets away with telling what he knows, in large part because of his national hero status.

"There are still Americans who think GW Bush is a fantastic President."

Who argued otherwise?  In any event, there are reasons for this (the folks who have benefited from his policies, and the low information types).

"Putin never had 100 percent approval rating."

Not sure what your point is here.  The only way the rating would be suspect is if it were 100%?

"On the other hand, Putin was elected."

So they say.  There are also those who think George won two elections on the up and up.  

I'm not sure what the site link had to do with Putin.

"... we are in no position to do anything about it. I think we can actually agree on that."

True that.

---

by: Fxston @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 17:36:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh the link (0.00 / 0)

had to do with Russian culture in general. It may very well explain why Putin is so popular. As for the elected part, maybe so, maybe not. However, you aptly pointed out that we are in no position to point fingers there. Then again, who knows what really is up with Putin? I have no illusions to him being down with liberal democracy anytime soon. However, all of the anti-Putin talk in the Western media leaves me with more questions than answers.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 17:54:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I dunno (0.00 / 0)

maybe I dont want pure Democracy. Afterall, Democracy does not necessarily equate to freedom. Maybe I want an impotent government with 1 hand tied behind its back.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 13:30:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We don't have pure democracy ... (0.00 / 0)

and I thought we already had an impotent government with one hand tied behind its back.  Hmmm.

---

by: Fxston @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 14:25:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe (0.00 / 0)

we need to cut its hands off then. As it stands, they cant seem to get anything worthwhile done. However, they have enough power to engage in an interventionist foreign policy(WARS), raise taxes without any accountability, engage in bogus social engineering projects, and generally stick their nose where it doesn't belong(IE:Citizen's daily lives). I think they just need even less power.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 15:27:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

0.5% Military Pay Increase Veto (0.00 / 0)

I think it is extremely outrageous that the lame federal government can bail out commercial banks and insurance companies (which it has no business doing) and then turn around and deny the military folks a 1/2% pay raise.

While the military people put their lives on the line EVERYDAY in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are imbiciles on Wall Street making a financial killing on the backs of the taxpayer.  This government (HA!) has proven to be the most outrageous and hypocritical since the days of Watergate.

If impeachment didn't take so long, I would be the first to call for the impeachment of the entire Bush administration.  The only people supporting the troops are the citizens themselves, never mind the asses in charge.

---

by: NHTimberwolf1965 @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 15:58:45 PM CDT

Pentagon goes Corporate with a 78% increase in cost for Cubicle (0.00 / 0)

mercenaries.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/M...

Jim diaried a $20B boondoggle just in a 'non-compatible' medical records mess. The cost of that program is a huge indirect cost of fueling poor medical care.

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDi...

************
Let us remember that McCain and the Keating 5 were a part of the Savings&Loan scandal. The Bushes [bro Neil took the hit for that but he is now selling books to schools for NCLB] were in the center of that. Lehman's went under before AIG got the bail out. They had hired Jeb Bush for a place in top management. Oh, and Big Mac's son, CFO for Cindy's Hensley Beer/land Co. resigned from a Board of Directors position at Silver State Bank. That bank was a 'las wages' loaner and went under last month. He got out just in time to not have to sign their quarterly report.

************

Guess maybe, the BushCos and BigMac see a big recruitment surge coming with the economy in the toilet and circling the drain.

---

by: deMeme @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 16:41:21 PM CDT

ernliz? ernliz? (4.00 / 2)

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 20:27:27 PM CDT

Bushco thinks you should be happy with... (0.00 / 0)

...three hots and a cot.

---

by: Gage @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:36:52 AM CDT

More like... (4.00 / 2)

1 hot, 2 MRE's and a floor.

---

by: Brian McGough @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 15:42:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does that come with... (0.00 / 0)

...a mosquito net?

---

by: Gage @ Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 20:17:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]