Welcome to PatsFans.com

3% good......3.5% unnecessary

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, May 17, 2007.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    WTF?

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_payhike_whitehouse_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.
     
  2. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    "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.​
     
  3. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    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 sh!thole we call a capital. :mad:
     
  4. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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
     
  5. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2007
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    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/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601538.html
     
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    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.”
     
  8. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2007
  9. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    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 sh!t 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.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2007
  10. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    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.
     
  11. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    whats the point of that?? Oh, so you can fit him into your definition of a troop hating cut and runner, and blindly defend the big Bush joke?

    wow...what a patriot. You attack the messenger for acknowledging what you yourself agree with, just because you dont agree with him on other sh!t?

    Heres a tip...put your faith in Bush down for a minute and look objectively at how much he "supports the troops". Why is it always party before country with you types??
     
  12. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    man, THAT is the riddle wrapped up in an enigma....
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2007
  13. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    Nope, it was asked and aswered (very well too), by the guy I asked it to btw.

    It's a legitimate friggen question too. In this climate, there are many who wouldn't give a troop a boot to piss in, but would gladly jump up and say, with feined indignity, how horrible Bush is for doing such a terrible thing, AND YOU KNOW IT. I wanted to know which camp he was in? It's a fair question, and he answered it.


    I won't ask you, okay ;)
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2007
  14. mr3putt

    mr3putt 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Did you hear that RW...welcome Pat...boy have you found a home.

    Now that we all agree .....how do we fix it?

    AHHHHHHHHHHH...:eek
     
  15. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    I've been telling you since you joined up here that you need to look beyond those sources that will only tell you one POV, or exactly what it is you want to hear. That by using multiple sources, and your own brain, you'll come to a more intelligent conclusion than what some slanted source wants you to believe. They oppose the raise to 3.5%, yes. However, the very article of source, Maze's article in the Times, clearly states the two reasons that it might be veto'd, and neither of them are the .5% difference. However, if you read the ThinkAgendaBoyProgress headline, you'd think that's exactly why they are going to veto. Is it a huge travesty? No, but it is clear slant and angle.

    Anyhow, I have no idea what any of the below means, and I personally would have no problems tossing another $40 a widows way. Does anyone understand what the mumbo jumbo is below?

    Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund. The current benefit programs for survivors, DoD’s Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and Department of Veterans Affairs’ Dependency Indemnity Compensation (DIC), provide sufficient benefits and avoid duplication of two complementary federal benefits programs established for the same purpose — providing a lifetime annuity for the survivor of an active, retired or former servicemember. This offset policy is consistent with private sector benefits. The provision is estimated to cost $27 million in the first year and about $160 million through FY 2013. It appears to be the first step toward eliminating the offset between SBP and DIC; full elimination of this offset would cost the Military Retirement Fund between $6 and $8 billion over 10 years.
     
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    Aren't you the same guy who called PINY a chicken hawk, or was that a misunderstanding?
     
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    There is no fixing it. Have you seen the bunch of retards running for office on both sides? We're toast! I better speed up my Italian citizenship papers. :D
     
  18. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    It sounds like they feel is a duplicity issues and that it already covered elsewhere. I speak halting legalese :rolleyes:
     
  19. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    what an utter bunch of typical RW craptacular slant... i can absorb your pathetic personal attacks, but please spare us all the semantics bullsh!t, and accept the fact that your White House doesn't wanna spend the additional $265 million...

    you talk a grand game, but no one is more guilty of an agenda and selective news source material here than you... anyhow, straight from the Administration, which hopefully you won't take issue with as being biased or "single-sourced":

    Military Pay: The Administration strongly opposes sections 601 and 606. The additional 0.5 percent increase above the President’s proposed 3.0 percent across-the-board pay increase is unnecessary. When combined with the overall military benefit package, the President’s proposal provides a good quality of life for servicemembers and their families. While we agree military pay must be kept competitive, the three percent raise, equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index, will do that. The cost of increasing the FY 2008 military pay raise by an additional 0.5 percent is $265 million in FY 2008 and $7.3 billion from FY 2008 to FY 2013.​

    Now, you can spin this with smoke screens and attacks on Think Progress all you like (afterall, it's all you ever really do here), but the plain fact is that the Bush League won't spend the extra money on the troops' livelihoods, but will gladly overcharge the American tax payers to support Halliburton officials' stays in 5-star hotels in Qatar...
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2007
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    You haven't repaired the hole in your inflatable doll, have you? :D I said, if you cared to read, that they don;t want to pay the .5% difference. Can't you read? My point was that the article they linked from the ArmyTimes as a source, clearly stated the veto threat was because of two specific issues, none of which was there disagreement over 3%-3.5%. Of course, simpletons only see veto & pay raise and figure accordingly. The way I see it, is that if the only difference were the .5% and not the two specifcs the AT mentioned, it wouldn't be veto'd.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>