• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentagon asking Congress to hold back on generous increases in troop pay

digsbe said:
I still don't think it's right. I also don't think it's right that they are allowed to sugar coat the military and lie to teenagers. You can't smoke until you're 18, you can drink or own a handgun until you are 21. But at the age of 17 you can pre-sign up to join the armed forces and ship out when you are 18. I really don't like how they bait teenagers.
Click to expand...

Dishonest recruiters are a whole separate issue. When I was recruited, I got a fairly honest assessment from my recruiter, including him saying "I never worked aviation, so not real sure", and "I could never work on the flight deck, place would scare me ****less".

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.
 
apdst said:
How do you define a, "decent wage", for risking your life to serve your country?
Click to expand...

The top 10 most dangerous jobs in the United States:
1) Fishermen
2) Pilots
3) Timber cutter
4) Structural metal workers
5) Waste collectors
6) Farmers and ranchers
7) Power-line workers
8) Miners
9) Roofers
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.
 
digsbe said:
It's like market fraud if you ask me. They advertise the military as a fun structured place where you get to see the world and make good money with wonderful benefits when you leave... This isn't the case, but once you sign on you can't change your mind.

Even if you can drink in front of an adult, you still don't need consenting parents to sign on as a 17 year old.
Click to expand...

Advertisements never tell the whole story. However, all those things are benefits of joining the military. There will be fun times. It is structured. You will see the world. You can, depending on situations, make decent money(I was single, liked in barracks, ate at base galley, almost all my income was disposable). GI bill alone is a wonderful benefit upon leaving, and if you retire, it truly is awesome benefits. It's not the whole story, but it is accurate.
 
Orion said:
Thanks for the rational reply (and thanks to jamesrage for posting some salary info). People were getting a bit defensive when I was just asking a question.

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.
Click to expand...

Choices go both ways. Yes, people who enlist make a lifestyle choice. However, we as a society make a choice as to how we want to reward those who do. I think it is important to reward well those who choose to serve our society.

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.
 
Orion said:
The top 10 most dangerous jobs in the United States:
1) Fishermen
2) Pilots
3) Timber cutter
4) Structural metal workers
5) Waste collectors
6) Farmers and ranchers
7) Power-line workers
8) Miners
9) Roofers
10) Truck drivers
Total deaths per year: 5,840
Source: Workplace safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Total American deaths in the entire War on Terror: 5,457
Source: United States casualties of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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.
Click to expand...

How many people work in those top 10 jobs? How many people are deployed at one time in the combat zones? See the problem with that argument?
 
Redress said:
How many people work in those top 10 jobs? How many people are deployed at one time in the combat zones? See the problem with that argument?
Click to expand...

Actually, lots of people work in those jobs, but the pay they earn is probably less than what the military pays, especially if you count the perks of the military.
 
samsmart said:
Actually, lots of people work in those jobs, but the pay they earn is probably less than what the military pays, especially if you count the perks of the military.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

All the same, the government can't pick them up and move them whenever it wants, or toss them onto a battle front in some godforsaken desert, or tell them how much they're allowed to make, or what their responsibilities are.
 
digsbe said:
It's like market fraud if you ask me. They advertise the military as a fun structured place where you get to see the world and make good money with wonderful benefits when you leave... This isn't the case, but once you sign on you can't change your mind.

Even if you can drink in front of an adult, you still don't need consenting parents to sign on as a 17 year old.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got this from, but both my husband and myself had to have our parents, both parents, sign so that we could enlist into DEP at 17, and we both went to bootcamp (him the first time) at 18. In fact, my husband told me that they actually surfaced his father's sub just so that he could sign my husband's enlistment papers into the Marines.

Anyway, I don't think enlistment and reenlistment bonuses are bad, considering not everyone gets one. They are specifically for undermanned jobs. Most of these jobs are severely undermanned despite giving reenlistment bonuses, so I couldn't imagine what those jobs would be manned like without such bonuses. In some cases, without bonuses offered, we would not be able to properly and safely operate our subs and carriers because the sailors who do so can make much better money in the private sector without the hours the military requires. And it costs a lot more money to train new people than it does to retain already trained personnel.

Now as for the generous pay raise, I actually agree with the Pentagon on this. I do think that we should look to cut spending all over the government, but I am also okay with not getting a pay raise or getting only a small pay raise, if it means fewer people forced out of the military because the budget doesn't support it. It sucks a lot more to have to try to work the same jobs in the same time with fewer people, than it does to have to spend a little more thrifty in the time you do get at home.
 
samsmart said:
Actually, lots of people work in those jobs, but the pay they earn is probably less than what the military pays, especially if you count the perks of the military.
Click to expand...

The fact there is a lot of them is the point. There is a lot more of them than soldiers in combat. Hence, the higher death numbers. Deaths per 100,000 would be a more revealing number.
 
roguenuke said:
I don't know where you got this from, but both my husband and myself had to have our parents, both parents, sign so that we could enlist into DEP at 17, and we both went to bootcamp (him the first time) at 18. In fact, my husband told me that they actually surfaced his father's sub just so that he could sign my husband's enlistment papers into the Marines.
Click to expand...

That is way cool that they did that.

...

Now as for the generous pay raise, I actually agree with the Pentagon on this. I do think that we should look to cut spending all over the government, but I am also okay with not getting a pay raise or getting only a small pay raise, if it means fewer people forced out of the military because the budget doesn't support it. It sucks a lot more to have to try to work the same jobs in the same time with fewer people, than it does to have to spend a little more thrifty in the time you do get at home.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this. If(and I am not really in a position to judge now) the military pay is finally decent, then slowing the rate of raises to match the civilian world is not bad. Before the recent higher pay raises(and hats off to every one who saw it happen, no matter what their personal politics), I would have opposed this, but if military pay is decent now, then slowing the rate of increases is not absolutely bad. I would prefer in a perfect world not to slow military pay increases, but it is not like it used to be, where McDonald's paid a higher hourly wage.
 
roguenuke said:
I don't know where you got this from, but both my husband and myself had to have our parents, both parents, sign so that we could enlist into DEP at 17, and we both went to bootcamp (him the first time) at 18. In fact, my husband told me that they actually surfaced his father's sub just so that he could sign my husband's enlistment papers into the Marines.
Click to expand...

Okay, that is just ****ing cool.

roguenuke said:
Now as for the generous pay raise, I actually agree with the Pentagon on this. I do think that we should look to cut spending all over the government, but I am also okay with not getting a pay raise or getting only a small pay raise, if it means fewer people forced out of the military because the budget doesn't support it. It sucks a lot more to have to try to work the same jobs in the same time with fewer people, than it does to have to spend a little more thrifty in the time you do get at home.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact I think the military can afford a pay raise if it dials back on the "fun toys," I don't think that there's a Congresscritter on either side of the isle that would survive an election if they refused to sign a bill funding these increases.

I'm not saying that the money doesn't have to come out of something else, I think we're already spending too much on a lot of things.

I'm just saying that the boots on the ground are about the last places we should be looking if we're looking for places to save money, is all.
 
I dunno TED, when I got in, we got 0 to 4 % raises annually, military families relied on foodstamps, and people got re-elected.
 
Well, without knowing when you got in, I think it's safe to say that you got in before perception management really hit its stride as a way of governing the nation.

At this point, all it takes is one pundit characterizing a "no" vote as a refusal to pay the troops a fair wage (whether or not it's true), and you'll have politicians falling all over themselves to prove how patriotic and conscientious they are when it comes to military pay.

That said, military families on food stamps piss me off. How on the face of planet Earth can we put a uniform on someone and reserve the right to order them into harm's way, and yet pay them so little that they need welfare in order to feed their kids?!
 
'87 to '93. Probably should have mentioned that. Back then, John Glenn was like our only friend in Congress.
 
Orion said:
The top 10 most dangerous jobs in the United States:
1) Fishermen
2) Pilots
3) Timber cutter
4) Structural metal workers
5) Waste collectors
6) Farmers and ranchers
7) Power-line workers
8) Miners
9) Roofers
10) Truck drivers
Total deaths per year: 5,840
Source: Workplace safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Total American deaths in the entire War on Terror: 5,457
Source: United States casualties of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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.
Click to expand...


I'm a truck driver and I ain't never been shot at, nor motored, nor run into an IED's. I like my chances of making it home to see my family vs. when I was in the service. Besides that, I don't have to go to the field for weeks on end, sleep in the mud, go without sleep for several days, or get deployed and I have way more creature comforts.
 
To answer both TED and Redress, yeah, I know it's really cool that they would do that.

I wouldn't mind more pay, but knowing how the military budget somewhat works, I also know that unfortunately the military gets a set amount of money period. The military budget has to cover everything the military spends money on.

And I know that if I went back in, they would at least give me back my E-6 rank, if not a bonus. At E-6 over 10 years (almost over 12) I would make $37K a year base pay and almost plus $300 a month sea pay (since my first assignment after refresher training would be sea duty) and at least $300 (I think more) per month special assignment pay. That would just be taxable income. BAH and BAS are not taxable pays. They depend on the area you live in, but if you just assume that I would live in base housing (all the BAH goes to base housing), then I would essentially be making around $40K a year, without having to pay rent or mortgage payment from that and without having to pay medical or dental bills. If I can't live on $40K a year when last year we made $25K and had to pay rent and $200 a month for just medical, then I definitely need to budget better.

Even on my husband's pay at E-3 currently, then to E-4 in a couple of months, we will do better this year than last year.

Now, don't get me wrong, I would do much better doing my job in the civilian sector and have better working hours. I just don't think that it is necessary to get a good size, if any, pay raise considering how much the pay is now. Especially when it means that getting that pay raise means less money for R&D, parts, new equipment, more personnel, or all of these or other important things as a part of the military.
 
TED, this might take this a little off your topic, but it's a story from the same speech and I don't think making a new topic on it is really appropriate either.

Gates: Spending 'gusher' now off - Jen DiMascio - POLITICO.com

Warning that the kind of massive budget increases seen since 2001 cannot continue, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is ordering the Pentagon to tighten its belt in ways that could squeeze its massive bureaucracy and create serious heartburn on Capitol Hill and in the defense industry.

Given the economic circumstances, Gates told reporters that the president and Congress would probably think very hard about whether to engage in another conflict that didn't directly threaten U.S. security. Iran isn’t one such conflict now, but said it could become one.

“It would be a very serious mistake to cut back or alter the defense budget in order to fund ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan—hopefully temporarily—and, at the same time, do that at the expense of vital shipbuilding programs that take years and years to put into place and are the envy of every other country,” Webb said in a statement.
Click to expand...

Basically, Gates is saying the the military budget cannot continue to grow at the rate it is. I agree. Doubling the budget every 10 years is unsustainable. The problem of course is where do you cut? We have been talking about military pay, which I hate to see cut, and increasing military health care premiums I think is absolutely unacceptable. Reducing the size of the Navy and Marine fleets is not really acceptable either. The problem with that is you cannot build the ships when you need them, you have to do it beforehand.

Reducing spending on unneeded weapon systems sounds good, but how do you really know which is the right weapon system we need. 20 years ago, when the Predator system was first funded to develop(roughly, not sure of exact year), if you told people about it they would have quickly labeled it as not needed, and yet it has turned into a huge success.

I agree, the military budget, like all government department budgets, needs to be reigned in. It's just going to be a real hard process, and far from perfect.
 
BTW, for anyone who doesn't know this, currently, the military does a budget analysis for anyone who gets in the military with dependents. If you cannot budget your family and debts with the current military pay, and have money left to save, then you have to get a waiver to get in, if you get approved at all. My husband had to do this several times while trying to get in this past couple of years. In fact, they compare your income and assets prior to entry to what you will make when you get in.
 
I think that military salaries should be competitive with private security companies, such as Blackwater. Two reasons: 1) To pay soldiers what they're worth. 2) and to recruit and retain more, better personel, thereby building a more professional force.
 
apdst said:
I think that military salaries should be competitive with private security companies, such as Blackwater. Two reasons: 1) To pay soldiers what they're worth. 2) and to recruit and retain more, better personel, thereby building a more professional force.
Click to expand...

If the whole of active duty members were paid similarly to the private sector, over all pay would most likely go down.

The majority of the people in the military serve as support/non combat members.
 
Redress said:
How many people work in those top 10 jobs? How many people are deployed at one time in the combat zones? See the problem with that argument?
Click to expand...

The numbers aren't the point. The point is that people serve their country in a number of different ways, and I don't think it's fair to give soldiers more than others who are doing even more high risk jobs but with less acknowledgment.

I have a better question. Why should the tax payers be expected to dish out more money for useless wars? The U.S. should never have gone to Iraq. I know what's done is done and we have to look forward, but if the military is having financial issues then the choices of the U.S. government are to blame. If the military has a budget crisis, even with half a trillion dollars per year or more, then maybe overseas campaigns should be reduced?

On the subject of welfare, fiscal conservatives always talk about conservation. Why are the same principles never applied to the military? It too can be a financial black hole if its function is not being used wisely.
 
Orion said:
The numbers aren't the point. The point is that people serve their country in a number of different ways, and I don't think it's fair to give soldiers more than others who are doing even more high risk jobs but with less acknowledgment.

I have a better question. Why should the tax payers be expected to dish out more money for useless wars? The U.S. should never have gone to Iraq. I know what's done is done and we have to look forward, but if the military is having financial issues then the choices of the U.S. government are to blame. If the military has a budget crisis, even with half a trillion dollars per year or more, then maybe overseas campaigns should be reduced?

On the subject of welfare, fiscal conservatives always talk about conservation. Why are the same principles never applied to the military? It too can be a financial black hole if its function is not being used wisely.
Click to expand...

Military is becoming one of those special pander groups.
Where in most circumstances, it's shielded from criticism because it's not patriotic.

Do I hate the military or the people who serve?
Not if their intentions are honest.

Do I think they deserve praise?
Not always.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom