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

[TacticalEvilDan]

The Pentagon, not usually known for its frugality, is pleading with Congress to stop spending so much money on the troops.

Through nine years of war, service members have seen a healthy rise in pay and benefits, with most of them now better compensated than workers in the private sector with similar experience and education levels.

Congress has been so determined to take care of troops and their families that for several years running it has overruled the Pentagon and mandated more-generous pay raises than requested by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. It has also rejected attempts by the Pentagon to slow soaring health-care costs -- which Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said are "eating us alive" -- by raising co-pays or premiums.

Now, Pentagon officials see fiscal calamity.

In the midst of two long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials are increasingly worried that the government's generosity is unsustainable and that it will leave them with less money to buy weapons and take care of equipment.

washingtonpost.com


ATTN: Pentagon
Subject: Pay Increases

**** YOU. For years, I've been sick and tired of the fact that enlisted men and women who make the necessary sacrifices for our nation's security have to apply for food stamps if they're going to feed their families on the meager pay they've been getting.

Ease up on the high-tech purchases and take care of the men and women who, oh, I don't know, use those purchases.

Assholes.

Also: EAT **** AND DIE.


TED,
A little pissed off, can't you tell?

 

[Orion]

Dan, your comment has nothing to do with the article.

The pentagon is proposing conservation as a means to make the wars more sustainable, and to ensure soldiers get to keep their jobs so that they won't be unemployed people applying for food stamps.

 

[apdst]

Dan, your comment has nothing to do with the article.

The pentagon is proposing conservation as a means to make the wars more sustainable, and to ensure soldiers get to keep their jobs so that they won't be unemployed people applying for food stamps.

Actually, Dan is right on target. Congress should cut their pay, so we can make wars more sustainable. Stop spending trillions of dollars on Liberal wet dreams and the expansion of the welfare class.

 

[jamesrage]

Dan, your comment has nothing to do with the article.

The pentagon is proposing conservation as a means to make the wars more sustainable, and to ensure soldiers get to keep their jobs so that they won't be unemployed people applying for food stamps.

If military pay was the biggest expense you might have a point,however I am pretty sure that they can find something else to cut. If they can give billions away to other countries,give money away so someone can study gays in bars in other countries and all kinds of other absurd projects surely our military men and women should get a decent wage.

 

[Orion]

If military pay was the biggest expense you might have a point,however I am pretty sure that they can find something else to cut. If they can give billions away to other countries,give money away so someone can study gays in bars in other countries and all kinds of other absurd projects surely our military men and women should get a decent wage.

Don't they already get a decent wage?

 

[apdst]

Don't they already get a decent wage?

How do you define a, "decent wage", for risking your life to serve your country?

 

[The Prof]

simultaneously, the pentagon awards HALIBURTON a HALF TRILLION dollar NO BID CONTRACT and the doj declares it will SUE cheney's chumps for KICKBACKS

KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks (Update1) - BusinessWeek

unbelievable

when will enough finally be enough?

this is NOT what YOU voted for

 

[Moon]

simultaneously, the pentagon awards HALIBURTON a HALF TRILLION dollar NO BID CONTRACT and the doj declares it will SUE cheney's chumps for KICKBACKS

KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks (Update1) - BusinessWeek

unbelievable

when will enough finally be enough?

this is NOT what YOU voted for

May 6 (Bloomberg) -- KBR Inc. was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said.

$568 million is nowhere near half a trillion dollars.

 

[Moon]

How do you define a, "decent wage", for risking your life to serve your country?

$1,000,000 a year?

 

[Redress]

Don't they already get a decent wage?

Military families until recently frequently depended on food stamps to get by. Considering the job they do, and the risk involved, and the hours a day/week/year put into that job, and the amount of travel and disruption to family and life, no, they really do not make enough.

 

[The Prof]

$568 million is nowhere near half a trillion dollars.

oops, half a bil, you're right

does my error justify the no bid?

what about the kickbacks?

 

[jamesrage]

Don't they already get a decent wage?

A E-1(Army& Marine Corp-private, Navy& Coast Guard-Seaman Recruit, Airforce- Airman Basic) starts out at $17,366.40 a year a E-6 (Army& Marine Corp -Staff Sergeant, Navy&Coast Guard- Petty Officer 1st Class, Airforce- Technical Sergeant) with 10 years in the military starts out at $42,066.00 a year. A O-1(Army,Airforce& Marine Corp- Second Lieutenant, Navy& Coast Guard- Ensign) start out with $32,947.20 a year and a O-3(Army, Airforce & Marine Corp - Captain, Navy Coast Guard - Lieutenant) with ten years service start out with $66,481.20 a year. So the answer is no.


2010 Military Pay Scale Chart - for Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines

 

[digsbe]

I think they should make pay cuts in other areas of the military, not to troop wages. I know probably 90% of people will disagree with me on this, but if they cut wages in any fashion they should cut the sign on bonuses that they use to bait teenagers into joining the military and to military advertisements asking people to join.

 

[apdst]

I think they should make pay cuts in other areas of the military, not to troop wages. I know probably 90% of people will disagree with me on this, but if they cut wages in any fashion they should cut the sign on bonuses that they use to bait teenagers into joining the military and to military advertisements asking people to join.

They should cut wages and bennies on the civilians that are employed by the DoD.

 

[digsbe]

They should cut wages and bennies on the civilians that are employed by the DoD.

No they shouldn't. They deserve every penny they make. Honestly they need to cut funding to advertisement for the army and all these sign on bonuses. As a senior in high school I got letters almost weekly from each branch of the military telling me how sweet it would be to join. The propagate the minds of 17 year old high school seniors into signing several years of their lives away, recruiters don't give you the full story, and it's an expensive process to advertise and bribe teenagers to enlist in the armed forces. Let someone who wants to enlist enlist, but it costs the country money to run commercials and send letters lying to immature teenagers about enlisting.

 

[Baralis]

I read recently (will look for it) that the government spends about 41K per family that is on government assistance.

Why is it a family that in many cases are not employed get as much as someone risking there lives for our security? And they want cuts...

We have our priorities screwed up.

 

[Redress]

I think they should make pay cuts in other areas of the military, not to troop wages. I know probably 90% of people will disagree with me on this, but if they cut wages in any fashion they should cut the sign on bonuses that they use to bait teenagers into joining the military and to military advertisements asking people to join.

The signing/re-enlistment bonuses are there for a reason. Taking them away would have an effect on getting people into unpopular jobs. Enlistment bonuses are not there to get people to sign, but to get them to take jobs where there is a lack of people.

 

[digsbe]

The signing/re-enlistment bonuses are there for a reason. Taking them away would have an effect on getting people into unpopular jobs. Enlistment bonuses are not there to get people to sign, but to get them to take jobs where there is a lack of people.

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.

 

[Degreez]

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.

It's still your choice. You'll have a right to complain when there's a draft.

And you can drink in front (with consent) of a legal guardian when you are under 21 (and older than 15).

 

[digsbe]

It's still your choice. You'll have a right to complain when there's a draft.

And you can drink in front (with consent) of a legal guardian when you are under 21 (and older than 15).

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.

 

[apdst]

No they shouldn't. They deserve every penny they make. Honestly they need to cut funding to advertisement for the army and all these sign on bonuses. As a senior in high school I got letters almost weekly from each branch of the military telling me how sweet it would be to join. The propagate the minds of 17 year old high school seniors into signing several years of their lives away, recruiters don't give you the full story, and it's an expensive process to advertise and bribe teenagers to enlist in the armed forces. Let someone who wants to enlist enlist, but it costs the country money to run commercials and send letters lying to immature teenagers about enlisting.

It doesn't make a damn bit of sense for a dim-witted trough-head secretary to make 60 g's a year, plus a rediculous bennies package, while a platoon sgt., who is responsible for the lives of 30 soldiers makes 25 grand.

 

[digsbe]

It doesn't make a damn bit of sense for a dim-witted trough-head secretary to make 60 g's a year, plus a rediculous bennies package, while a platoon sgt., who is responsible for the lives of 30 soldiers makes 25 grand.

That's just your opinion. I'm sure not all secretaries are dim wits that make 60 grand per year. The military gives ridiculous benefit packages. I think the soldiers shouldn't have pay cuts and I do believe they deserve raises, however I think advertising costs too much.

 

[Orion]

Military families until recently frequently depended on food stamps to get by. Considering the job they do, and the risk involved, and the hours a day/week/year put into that job, and the amount of travel and disruption to family and life, no, they really do not make enough.

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.

 

[Degreez]

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.

If you believe the military is a "fun structured place where you get to see the world", then you (or whoever) obviously deserves to get suckered into joining the military. I don't believe Red Bull gives me wings from those commercials, so I'm not gonna get mad when some idiot drinks some and jumps off a building expecting to fly away.

 

[digsbe]

If you believe the military is a "fun structured place where you get to see the world", then you (or whoever) obviously deserves to get suckered into joining the military. I don't believe Red Bull gives me wings from those commercials, so I'm not gonna get mad when some idiot drinks some and jumps off a building expecting to fly away.

I don't believe the army is a fun structures place. I did get some cards from the Navy though telling me that if I enlist I would get to travel the world and learn the self discipline skills required to make it in life. A lot of the adds will say "do something with your life" as if not joining the military means your life is less important or worthless. Recruiters and adds don't give you the full truth, they spin the truth to try and capture teenagers.