Pay raise increase D-E-N-I-E-D-

No longer can you say he supports the troops, Bush acolytes. You support a sick crippled delusioned administration. Peel that bumper sticker right off your car that says "Bush supports the troops"

HE
LIED
TO YOU

It's over and I don't want to hear this b.s. about "This president" supporting the troops. It's over, got it ?





link:

www.armytimes.com...

The White House has come out in opposition to a proposal by Congress to raise military pay by 3.5 percent, according to a report by Army Times. The administration had originally asked for only a 3 percent increase in pay, equal to private sector pay increases, effective January 1, 2008. The House Armed Services Committee raised the increase to 3.5 percent for 2008, and also recommended increases in 2009 through 2012 that would be 0.5 percent higher than private sector raises. "The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today," according to the report. "Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase." The report continues, "Bush budget officials said the administration 'strongly opposes' both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases 'unnecessary.'" The White House's policy statement opposed several other Congressional provisions as well, including a death gratuity for civilians who die in support of military operations and benefits for disabled retireees and their survivors. Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) sharply criticized the administration for its opposition. "We ask our troops to risk their lives for our nation," said Emanuel. "We ask their spouses to raise families and make ends meet without them as they serve. The President is a lot of talk when it comes to supporting the troops and their families." Emanuel continued, "It’s easy to say you support our troops, but actions matter and when it comes to the treatment of our troops and their families, our resources must match our rhetoric."

So because Bush doesn't believe in such a pay raise, it's time to start typing in caps lock and sentence fragments?

Denying a 3.5% raise has nothing to do with supporting soldiers. In fact, it lets you use more money to better equip them.


Not that I support it. I don't think that officers are paid well enough.

Typical Democrat politics. Instead of showing support for the troops by funding their mission, they are arguing with the Commander in Chief over a 1/2 % pay raise. It's called "over-compensating". America knows Democrats are weak when it comes to supporting the troops, so they throw out a 1/2 percent pay raise over what the President recommended, knowing it will never happen. But as always with Democrats...It's the thought that counts.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Not that I support it. I don't think that officers are paid well enough.

Officers get paid plenty. If you take the highest paid enlisted and compare that to the highest paid officer, the officer makes more than twice the enlisted. You can say that is because the officer has a degree if you want, but, a lot of enlisted personnel have bachelor degrees. Even then, most officers aren't even working in the field their degree is in. Example: a degree in history working with satellites.

Enlisted people do most of the work. If you were running a business, would you pay more to the people doing more work, or the people passing off the work to someone in a lower position?

Yes, you could say not allowing a pay raise would let you use more money to better equip the troops, but what about being able to pay your bills? What would you prefer; being able to have better technology, or would you like to make more money so you could perhaps visit the family you couldn't afford to go visit?

I'm not sure how to explain this without being an elitist, but whatever. If a general dies, an entire theater can be in trouble. If a staff sergeant dies, it doesn't have as broad of an influence. Simply put, the officers are there to lead, give orders, create tactics and strategies... Enlisted men are there to carry them out. It's a different sort of person that you're trying to attract. You need intelligence, especially in engineering and other technical officer fields (including intelligence, lol). If you compare military pay to starting salary in the private sector, you might lose a lot of potential officers (ex. computer engineering). But hey, I'm all for an enlisted pay raise, too.

Originally posted by secret titan
Yes, you could say not allowing a pay raise would let you use more money to better equip the troops, but what about being able to pay your bills? What would you prefer; being able to have better technology, or would you like to make more money so you could perhaps visit the family you couldn't afford to go visit?

I don't see how that's even a choice. If you had to choose between having equipment in the field that can save your life and the lives of fellow soldiers, or take home an extra $200 (annually), would you really take the money?

[edit on 19-5-2007 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Johnmike
I'm not sure how to explain this without being an elitist, but whatever. If a general dies, an entire theater can be in trouble. If a staff sergeant dies, it doesn't have as broad of an influence. Simply put, the officers are there to lead, give orders, create tactics and strategies... Enlisted men are there to carry them out. It's a different sort of person that you're trying to attract. You need intelligence, especially in engineering and other technical officer fields (including intelligence, lol). If you compare military pay to starting salary in the private sector, you might lose a lot of potential officers (ex. computer engineering). But hey, I'm all for an enlisted pay raise, too.

You got to be kidding me right? So did we lose WW2 when General Lesley J. McNair died? No, and that was then when you really need it leadership that could strategize and plan everything to the last detail.

Officers nowadays serve mostly as the buffer beteween politicians and military, and by that I'm referring at the General rank. To be honest when a Ssgt dies at the rate that they have been in a war like in Iraq, is does have an enormous and broad impact on the force that it is felt directly by those who have to carry orders, the guys he work on a day to day basis.
And that intelligence that you say we need, in those specialties are not even provided by the officer core, they are provided by a wide range of corporate businesses, like Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman,General Dynamics,United Technologies,Science Applications International Corporation,Hughes, I mean I can go on an on with this. My point is that the views that you have on the current military structure is an outdated one. The way the Total Force is going to be affected are going to be determined by the conditions on the ground, and decisions made by politicians. The General core dont hold that much impact and the War in Iraq is a reflexion of that, when they didnt stand up to Donald Rumsfeld and let this war be planned the way it was, they became part of the problem to the detriment of the military.

As for the pay raise issue, they did authorize a targeted raise for this fiscal years, want to take a guess for what ranks? E-5,E-6, the lower tier of the seargent core. But it would not surprise me from this administration, they have extensively fought to cut benefits for veterans, to make active duty members pay for healthcare and to cut money on the allowances we receive (all attempts stop by Congress over the past 8 years), all of this at a time of war, so what ever this administration does it wont surprise me a bit.


[edit on 1-7-2007 by Bunch]

[edit on 1-7-2007 by Bunch]

Originally posted by
Bunch

You got to be kidding me right? So did we lose WW2 when General Lesley J. McNair died? No, and that was then when you really need it leadership that could strategize and plan everything to the last detail.

Officers nowadays serve mostly as the buffer beteween politicians and military, and by that I'm referring at the General rank. To be honest when a Ssgt dies at the rate that they have been in a war like in Iraq, is does have an enormous and broad impact on the force that it is felt directly by those who have to carry orders, the guys he work on a day to day basis.
And that intelligence that you say we need, in those specialties are not even provided by the officer core, they are provided by a wide range of corporate businesses, like Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman,General Dynamics,United Technologies,Science Applications International Corporation,Hughes, I mean I can go on an on with this. My point is that the views that you have on the current military structure is an outdated one. The way the Total Force is going to be affected are going to be determined by the conditions on the ground, and decisions made by politicians. The General core dont hold that much impact and the War in Iraq is a reflexion of that, when they didnt stand up to Donald Rumsfeld and let this war be planned the way it was, they became part of the problem to the detriment of the military.

As for the pay raise issue, they did authorize a targeted raise for this fiscal years, want to take a guess for what ranks? E-5,E-6, the lower tier of the seargent core. But it would not surprise me from this administration, they have extensively fought to cut benefits for veterans, to make active duty members pay for healthcare and to cut money on the allowances we receive (all attempts stop by Congress over the past 8 years), all of this at a time of war, so what ever this administration does it wont surprise me a bit.


[edit on 1-7-2007 by Bunch]

[edit on 1-7-2007 by Bunch]

That's was my reply.Sorry that I included my reply with the quote, I'm kind of new here still learning the tricks.