Holy Diver

WTF?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/0...ehouse_070516/

First we outsource a militia....
Next we under equip our armed forces
then we don't take care of our troops when they are wounded and come home
after that we extend their tours

now we don't want to give them more $$$?

Our menand women serving our nation to protect the constitution are Heroes and Patriots, why don't our elected leaders treat them that way? This is SICK.

PressCoverage

"support the troops!!! because the WH doesn't!!!"

what a PoS...

Bush Threatens Veto Over Troop Pay Raise, Military Widow Benefits

The Bush administration today threatened to a veto a House defense spending bill over a 3.5 percent pay raise for U.S. soldiers and a $40/month increase in benefits for military widows, among other provisions. The legislation passed the House today 397-27.

ThinkProgress noted last night that the White House opposed the pay raise for troops:

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill. […]

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

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 says it also opposes:

– a $40/month allowance for military survivors, saying the current benefits are “sufficient”

– additional benefits for surviving family members of civilian employees

– price controls for prescription drugs under TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for military personnel and their dependents

House Minority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said today he was “shocked and disappointed in the President’s threat,” noting that Bush’s problems with the bill are over measures that benefit “the very people who sacrifice the most in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and who serve at home and overseas.”

UPDATE: VoteVets chairman and Iraq veteran Jon Soltz adds:

Believe me, even with the current benefits that get paid out by the Department of Defense and insurance that many troops buy into, those who lose spouses in Iraq aren’t sleeping in mounds of cash. The increase proposed by Democrats will mean a hell of a lot. At VoteVets.org, we’ve heard absolute horror stories on the type of cutbacks that widows and widowers have had to make because the government doesn’t provide enough to those who lose a loved one in war.

Patriot_in_NY

Can you blame him? We gotta start saving money for all social programs that will benifit our NEW FOUND countrymen.

You know, the ones that thumb thier noses at our laws, our culture and traditions and had sneak and lie thier way here. Bush sucks, along with congress, and the rest of the imps in that *****hole we call a capital.

All_Around_Brown

You guys are surprised? This is the Bush version of supporting the troops. The troops he refers to, of course, is his mercenary army. They will be treated well, even if our regular army isn't. The rest of you can show your support by sticking a cheap bumper sticker on your car.

This is a long one, but tells it like it is from the perspective of the troops returning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sLE2l9-lTc

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Holy Diver

for an administartion that SCREAMS "support the troops" this is dead wrong. this has nothing to do with social programs for illegals, don't point the finger. lets stick to the topic here.

Real World

It's save the children. It's like a pol who wants to cut education funding, and the other guy yells "he wants to cut education!. You can't win either way. Were it up to me I'd give them a 20% raise. Afterall, what's the difference, we're going bankrupt anyway.

Last year the song and dance was different. Of course, people read a headline and run with it, without remembering, or knowing all the aspects of what's involved.




Federal Workers

Same 2.2% Raise Proposed for Civilians and Military

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 7, 2006; Page A11

President Bush proposed a 2.2 percent pay raise for federal civilian employees and members of the armed forces yesterday, marking the first time in his presidency that he has called for equivalent raises for both groups.

In past budgets, Bush has sought larger raises for the military than for civilians, with White House officials saying that service members deserved bigger increases in light of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the continuing struggle against terrorism.

Every year, however, Congress has ignored the recommendation and passed the same raise for both groups, citing a two-decade tradition of "pay parity" that recognizes the contributions of both civilian workers and the military. Last year, lawmakers approved an across-the-board raise of 3.1 percent for everyone after Bush had proposed that amount for the military but 2.3 percent for civilian workers.

"I consider it a personal victory that, for the first time in recent history, the president has linked civilian and military pay raises," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the Government Reform Committee and a top proponent of pay parity. "Both civilian and military employees deserve and need this pay hike."

Federal employee union leaders called the proposed raise inadequate, however.

The "paltry" increase "will do nothing to close the pay gap with the private sector," John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said in a written statement. "Worse still, because the proposed raise is lower than inflation estimates, the standard of living for federal employees likely will decrease in 2007."

Asked why the White House took a different approach this year, Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, said pay parity was not the president's goal. Rather, the pay raise proposal reflects "an amount that will most effectively and responsibly allow us to recruit, retain and reward quality employees," he said.

Conant said the proposed 2.2 percent pay increase is in line with estimates of wage growth among private-sector employees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020601538.html

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Real World

This is partly why Senators and Congressmen have a more difficult time winning a presidential election than do governors. Votes are more complicated than wanting some ice cream with your pie, or not wanting some ice cream. Think about it this way, if they put out a bill that wanted to give 10% to the mil, who would really vote against it? Furthermore, if the bill is laden with other items of concern, and you vote against it, what are your detractors going to focus on? Not "you didn't vote for a troop raise" right?

Nah....

ArmyTimes article:

Two items in the House defense bill could lead to a veto, the policy statement warns. One is a change in the National Security Personnel system that would back away from the pay-for-performance initiative pushed by the Bush administration and reverse some of the flexibility provided in current law. The second issue that could prompt a veto are Buy America provisions in the bill that White House officials said “would impose unrealistically arduous requirements.”

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

PressCoverage

the Whitey House flatly states is does not support a $40/month pay increase for military survivors, and "strongly opposes" a 3.5% pay increase...

no obfuscation of the bill changes their boneheaded stance.

Patriot_in_NY

Sorry, I don't really mean that, I'm just so frigging pissed at my "government" today.

BESIDES, ask any of the old soilders in here (LIKE ME), you don't even want to know how much some of us got paid back in the day. Have you ever asked your boss for a big raise and he said no, you get a normal one. Dude, it happens all the time. Like I said, not sure I agree or disagree (I don't know enough), but one thing is for sure. It's probably not as simple as you make it sound.

Also, can I ask you a SINCERE question. Do you really give a ***** what the "troops" make, or is this just another opportunity for you to jump up and say "Bush is the devil".

Wait................. don't answer that, I already know.

My exact point. You made it better than me.

Holy Diver

My fellow americans who put their life on the line everyday for my freedom, are heroes of mine......so YES I think they should be well paid. The real problem I have is that a contracted soldier who has no pledge to protect the constitution gets paid by the tax payer at least 3 times as much.

thats F-ed up...so if you wanna be pissed off at the government and are looking for a reason, look no further.