Presidential Panel: Freeze Military Pay

reply to post by Gnarly


Your misunderstanding. Combat pay is extra money for being in combat. There housing allowance would still be frozen. Its not the same thing. Across the board in the military housing allowance would be frozen. It would affect the soldiers deployed with a family back home the same.

reply to post by rakkasansct


In some areas a freeze on the variable housing allowances and cost of living adjustments wouldn't bethat bad. In places like the bases in georgia and I'd imagine even up in Tennessee around campbell what joe makes is on par or better than locals. Where it hurts is in places with high costs in rent like DC, Hawaii, san diego, and alaska.

This is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Those brave men and woman fighting for are freedom, away from there families, and this is how are government thanks them,when the congress gets a automatic $4000.00 dollar pay increase every year. All I've got to say is @#$% off government ,you low down scum bags. Just to even think this a good idea is retarded.

reply to post by rakkasansct


Oh, it says housing allowance in the article. LOL. Basic and allowances taken away, my bad. It wouldn't make sense to screw your army over like that. First, you're going to create a new enemy. Secondly, you're going to get invaded with a weak army. No general would ever allow that.

Originally posted by topdog65807
Those brave men and woman fighting for are freedom,

sorry, that bit bugs me.

they are not fighting for my freedom, or yours...if they dropped guns tomorrow and came home, you would enjoy the same amount of freedom that you have today.

America hasn't fought anyone for preservation of our freedom for over 60 years, and arguably not even WW2 was for our freedom (though it was the right thing to do).

Currently, we are fighting for spreading our ideals...which in the case of where they are fighting, is about as easy as teaching a cat quantum physics.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Sorry about that just a little pissed about the hole thing. Thanks for pointing that out.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by topdog65807
Those brave men and woman fighting for are freedom,

sorry, that bit bugs me.

they are not fighting for my freedom, or yours...if they dropped guns tomorrow and came home, you would enjoy the same amount of freedom that you have today.

America hasn't fought anyone for preservation of our freedom for over 60 years, and arguably not even WW2 was for our freedom (though it was the right thing to do).

Currently, we are fighting for spreading our ideals...which in the case of where they are fighting, is about as easy as teaching a cat quantum physics.

Wether or not thats true. If the govt is sending these men and women to fight and die. Shouldn't they do everything in there power to take care of them?

reply to post by rakkasansct




re-deploy the troops to fight their real enemy....


the AQ and Taliban are an armed adversary ... but the Bankers, Brokers of the Wall Street cartel are the life blood enemy...

their continuing actions and compensation & bonus packages are the reason for the spending increases by the Government... they also created the reduced tax revenues by causing
the 17% unemployment and the 25% under employment, as they themselves Luxuriate in their gains at everyone elses expense.


re-aim your gun sights troops, its those in the $1,500. suits with briefcases that are tthe mortal enemy

There are approximately 1,500,000 active members in the military. If you gave each and every one of them a $10,000 per year raise, that would be an additional annual expense of $15 billion. Seems like a strikingly large amount of dough to provide some financial comfort to a relative few.

Here’s a link of what was promised and what was spent (as of April 2009) in terms of keeping the wolves away from the doors of the rich folk many of whom despite the total utter economic disaster in this country continued on with their rather large salaries and even larger bonuses garnered from such stellar performances.

Regardless of how you feel about the industrial military complex that gets rich from the efforts of the end users of the bombs, bullets, tanks and planes they supply, which expenditure do you think garners more support from us normal average everyday folk wandering down main street to chit-chat about this over a coffee or two with friends?

Originally posted by rakkasansct
Wether or not thats true. If the govt is sending these men and women to fight and die. Shouldn't they do everything in there power to take care of them?

I almost wish there was a bulletproof way to determine intent

a soldier that is convinced he is going to free the people of a nation from dictatorship and/or fight for our freedoms, etc...sure...they deserve every comfort possible.

a soldier whom only joined to legally murder others deserves nothing...he got what he wanted, now toss him in the streets.

Sadly, we have no way to test the psychology of a person enlisting, therefore we have to pretend they are all the first catagory (even though there is a high chance 51% fall into the second half).

War sucks.

If say...the UK was overrun by some marauding army...I would willingly go over there to fight and die to help them out...I also would do it with our without the support of our military...because that cause I would believe in...so, to me, the pay wouldn't matter to me. I mean, it would be nice if once done and I live through it, I get a golden palace and jet car when I come back...but that is only a nice perk that was not even a consideration beforehand.

I think intent matters of the soldier moreso than the action.

There is a philosophy of a warrior..when you have two captives and you must kill one...find which one stands up and accepts the death, and which one cowers and begs for his life...kill the one cowering and salute the one that stood...the cowering one came to murder, the standing one came out of belief in the cause.

I wonder how many of our soldiers would cower and how many would stand.

There is a philosophy of a warrior..when you have two captives and you must kill one...find which one stands up and accepts the death, and which one cowers and begs for his life...kill the one cowering and salute the one that stood...the cowering one came to murder, the standing one came out of belief in the cause.

I wonder how many of our soldiers would cower and how many would stand. ]Originally posted by SaturnFX


Thats a whole different can of worms. An extremely interesing philosphical question tho.

You can't divide the force with the awkward statement: "those who "do" combat"
for every one "trigger puller " on the ground there are hundreds ensuring his ammunition gets to a supply point; hundreds more to keep the helicopters flying from the supply point to the forward base. .They have families living off base too. They all make minor wages.
Food people
medical people
equipment people
management ( officer corp)
Purchasing, supply and logistics
maintenance and repair people
internal law enforcement
planning and intelligence
budgeting and interfacing with the govt.

Its a "volunteer force":. How many volunteers do you think you'll get if there were a no families allowed rule and every trooper from the greenest recruit to Master sergeants and chiefs had to live in the barracks(* "free housing") and eat in the ("free food") chow hall?Nobody would put up with more than the first 4years of it. Folks like you( saturn fx) would have to be drafted in forced service.

Our military members that were Disabled Retired from our military do NOT get paid.

It's the only place you can "retire" from and NOT get paid. The Chapter 61 Disability Retirement Program says an E-5 that broke his back diving into a ditch to avoid mortar fire WILL ONLY either get his retirement pay or VA Disability.

Everyone picks their $600 VA Disability check instead since it's not taxable. They can't get both checks, unless they made it to 20 years in service. Why should we pay someone that made it to 20 years both checks? They were fit enough to make it 20 years, they can't be that bad. That's what Congress decided.

Our military got screwed under a Democrat, Harry Truman when he passed Executive Order 10122. This took our Veterans Disability Retirement program from Veterans Affairs....and put it under the Department of Defense. Harry did this so the Billions could be moved to the DOD budget...so then that money can be loaned to foreign countries every year to buy our military hardware. Harry thought this was good way to create jobs for Americans......by screwing over those that broke their backs for this country.

Congress Critter Skelton recently released a statement saying there are 130,000 Americans that were Disabled Retired from DOD...that don't get paid. Congress has bills occasionally to debate paying them, but the money is always "never found" to fund those poor souls.

If Executive Order 10122 was abolished it would put those Billions back under Veterans Affairs, and our Disabled Retired military members would actually get paid.

How do I know this? I was Disabled Retired with 12 years after breaking my back in the military. I get a $600 monthly check from Veterans Affairs, but no military retirement. I do have a fancy blue ID card saying "retired military". I can shop on base with it for a benefit. But I can find cheaper things at Walmart to buy.

I find it appalling DOD is giving people +$36,000 bonuses to enlist or re-enlist....but doesn't pay the Disabled Retired. This Generation is treated better than any other getting those silly high enlistment bonuses/re-enlistment bonuses....but they should know....if they get Disabled Retired they won't get paid a dime.

Try housing, feeding, and clothing 2 kids and wife while being disabled on $600 a month from Veterans Affairs. It sure would be nice if America paid it's Disabled Retired. I guess those 130,000 have to suffer so the rest of America can get jobs making military hardware for foreign countries with the money.

Thank you Harry Truman, typical Democrat.