What I'm seeing is that people think entitlement programs should be cut in order to give more money to military families, when that in of itself is a kind of entitlement. I agree that soldiers have high risk jobs, but they're still jobs that they volunteered for just like anyone else.
Whenever there are debates on welfare and entitlement programs, the issue of people's choices in life always comes up. Did soldiers not choose that way of life also? I realize U.S. has a culture of venerating its soldiers and placing duty on a sort of pedestal, but from a fiscal point of view I don't think soldiers deserve outrageous amounts of money. They knew the risks and demands when they signed up.
If we're talking about livable wages here, then that I can agree with. All soldiers should make enough to survive on, and if they're not then raises need to be demanded; but just because they're doing a job that garners patriotic favoritism does not mean they deserve over-the-top salaries.
Last edited by Orion; 05-08-10 at 04:27 PM.
As far as recruiting 17 year olds, you are comparing apples to oranges. Companies can recruit 17 year olds to come work for them when they graduate(though it is done rarely), and that is basically what this is, an employer recruiting 17 your olds to come work for them.
3) Timber cutter
4) Structural metal workers
5) Waste collectors
6) Farmers and ranchers
7) Power-line workers
10) Truck drivers
Total deaths per year: 5,840
Source: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_safety]Workplace safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Total American deaths in the entire War on Terror: 5,457
Source: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war]United States casualties of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
More people die in the top 10 most dangerous jobs per year than soldiers who have died in the entire war, and a lot of them don't make salaries that are so great either. Note that soldiers didn't even make the list. Soldiers are, statistically, also the most likely to make it to retirement and receive benefit packages, versus the above top 10.
Maybe the government should be giving more entitlement funds to the families in the top 10? After all, what price can you place on serving in such a dangerous duty? And barely anyone talks about them.
Also, I believe part of the reason for the increases recently in pay was in reaction to recruiting and retention issues the military was handling. If we do not pay enough to get top quality people to enlist, and re-enlist, then the real cost is much higher, measured in terms of readiness and effectiveness of the military.