I've been converted

[VetteMuscle427]

I'm stoopid. I don't understand the percentages on the chart.

Those are yearly pay raises... "Raise" would be what the military got... "ECI" is the civilian raise and pay difference... is... well, pay difference.

 

[Rg9]

Wow, that's very interesting to a guy who is (hopefully) about to be on the military payroll...

But I thought Congress was mostly responsible for military pay. And it has fluctuated, but was mostly Republican during the Clinton presidential years...

Just wondering.

Yeah, you're right. The 95 raise (after the Republicans swept through Congress), was pretty bad. As has been said, military pay raises are a trans-partisan issue, and especially for Democrats who appear weak on military issues - they'll try to raise it more to look like they're supporting the troops.

Pay is only a small part of "supporting the troops" however. Supporting the mission that is being done and enabling the military to do that mission is much more important than a 2.2 vs. a 2.7 pay raise (although we all like the bigger number )

 

[m0tbaillie]

Pay is only a small part of "supporting the troops" however. Supporting the mission that is being done and enabling the military to do that mission is much more important than a 2.2 vs. a 2.7 pay raise (although we all like the bigger number )

I agree, pay *is* only a small part of supposed the troops. Therefore, I have to ask...how do you feel about the multitude of reports and gripes coming from troops on the ground in Iraq complaining about being ill-equipped upon being deployed? We're talking guys who are buying their own kevlar from commercial sources because they either weren't issued any (so says the reports) or were issued sub-standard, old gear. Humvees without armor being outfitted with ad-hoc armor by troops, the abysmal conditions at Walter Reed (and I'm talking about the part that the troops end up in, not the spectacularly well-kept facility that the local Congressmen are swept through), and the reports of wounded returning state-side who are having their benefits and/or pay cut/mismanaged?

 

[VetteMuscle427]

Therefore, I have to ask...how do you feel about the multitude of reports and gripes coming from troops on the ground in Iraq complaining about being ill-equipped upon being deployed? We're talking guys who are buying their own kevlar from commercial sources because they either weren't issued any (so says the reports) or were issued sub-standard, old gear. Humvees without armor being outfitted with ad-hoc armor by troops

What they buy is their own choice. While not always having "the best" gear available, I'd wager their gear is pretty good. Who determines what gear is "sub-standard?" BTW, how many pictures have you seen of Shermans in WWII or M-113s in Vietnam... all with "ad-hoc" armor?

the abysmal conditions at Walter Reed (and I'm talking about the part that the troops end up in, not the spectacularly well-kept facility that the local Congressmen are swept through)

Have you been in Walter Reed? Have you seen the "abysmal conditions?" Every time I have been there, it was reasonably well kept up and staffed by motivated and competent medical staff.

 

[m0tbaillie]

What they buy is their own choice. While not always having "the best" gear available, I'd wager their gear is pretty good. Who determines what gear is "sub-standard?" BTW, how many pictures have you seen of Shermans in WWII or M-113s in Vietnam... all with "ad-hoc" armor?

As Congress and the public focus on more than $600 billion already approved in supplemental budgets to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for counterterrorism operations, the Bush administration has with little notice approached a landmark in military spending.

The Pentagon on Monday will unveil its proposed 2009 budget of $515.4 billion. If it is approved in full, annual military spending, when adjusted for inflation, will have reached its highest level since World War II.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0320-05.htm

With a budget of over half a trillion dollars for the military, don't you suppose our gear in Iraq ought to have armor? Also, IEDs didn't exist during WW2. Different war, different circumstances, different environment.

Have you been in Walter Reed? Have you seen the "abysmal conditions?" Every time I have been there, it was reasonably well kept up and staffed by motivated and competent medical staff.

President Bush, responding to a growing outcry from the public and Congress, said today that medical treatment for some wounded soldiers is "unacceptable" and appointed former Sen. Bob Dole and former Clinton cabinet member Donna Shalala to head an independent inquiry into military health care.

The announcement came as the Senate opened its own investigation Tuesday into reports of soldiers facing poor medical conditions at some facilities and excessive red tape.

"Some of our troops have experienced bureaucratic delays and living conditions that are less than they deserve," Bush told an American Legion gathering in Washington. "It is unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to you, and it is unacceptable to our country and it is not going to continue."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-06-walter-reed_N.htm

Negative reputation for reiterating what the President himself has already said? Was that really necessary?

 

[MasterBates]

And how much of that budget is retiree/dependent medical expenses (which would have been MUCH less in WWII)?

While our stuff is more expensive than it used to be, we are not building 10,000 of anything, save maybe HMMVs and bullets either.

 

[m0tbaillie]

And how much of that budget is retiree/dependent medical expenses (which would have been MUCH less in WWII)?

While our stuff is more expensive than it used to be, we are not building 10,000 of anything, save maybe HMMVs and bullets either.

Discounting the additional expenditures for retiree/dependent benefits, wouldn't there still be ample cash to buy armor for our vehicles and troops on the ground?

 

[MasterBates]

I think you underestimate the cost of "benefits". If you want to whip out "biggest defense budget ever", you better know what it contains.

Back then medical was much cheaper, and there were far fewer using the system.

 

[m0tbaillie]

I think you underestimate the cost of "benefits". If you want to whip out "biggest defense budget ever", you better know what it contains.

Back then medical was much cheaper, and there were far fewer using the system.

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs16/f/2007/124/3/4/Death_and_Taxes__2008_by_mibi.jpg

That's a really, really cool visual representation of overall government expenditures for FY08.

Military/Nat. Security - 717 billion (67%)
GWOT - 145.2 billion
Operations and Maintenance - 79.1 billion

 

[Flash]

Can we consider the 70's recent? If so...

Ummmm, where have you been the last few years?

And if I remember correctly, Republicans were in office 7 out of the 10 years of the 70's.......just saying.

 

[phrogdriver]

I agree, pay *is* only a small part of supposed the troops. Therefore, I have to ask...how do you feel about the multitude of reports and gripes coming from troops on the ground in Iraq complaining about being ill-equipped upon being deployed? We're talking guys who are buying their own kevlar from commercial sources because they either weren't issued any (so says the reports) or were issued sub-standard, old gear. Humvees without armor being outfitted with ad-hoc armor by troops, the abysmal conditions at Walter Reed (and I'm talking about the part that the troops end up in, not the spectacularly well-kept facility that the local Congressmen are swept through), and the reports of wounded returning state-side who are having their benefits and/or pay cut/mismanaged?

The gear was never "sub-standard." Even at the beginning of the war, the average American soldier/Marine's gear was way better than any other troop in the world. The fact that they didn't have the latest high-tech body armor available in the US doesn't mean that the existing gear was substandard, just that the best available wasn't issued. The HMMWV was perfectly adequate for the assault, but was not suited to COIN warfare and IEDs. As Rumsfeld said in a moment of lucidity, "You go to was with the Army you have, not the Army you want..." The fact that some families bought armor out of their pockets is not a statement about the military, any more than them buying a Camelbak for their relative.

It's funny how the Left bitches and moans that the military gold-plates everything and that it spends too much money getting the "best" when "good" would do, then turns around and slams the DoD for not getting the "best" as soon as it fits a political agenda. In this case, that agenda is, as always, to make President Bush look bad.

In regards to a later post...
Who is "in power" if one party has the Congress, while the other has the White House? Opposite extremes of this happened during the '80s and '90s and right now.

 

[lmnop]

wouldn't there still be ample cash to buy armor for our vehicles and troops on the ground?

You keep bringing up the body armor and vehicle armor issues. It's old news. Regrettably, depending on who you talk to, the pendulum has swung the other way. These days you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a sagging, overarmored M1114 or 1151 with frag kit 8000 on it. Inside these vehicles are a bunch of dudes that have turtle like mobility due to the DAPs, side plates, neck guards, etc, etc that they are now required to wear because of all the initial hoopla about guys not having enough armor. IMHO we've focused on PPE to the point that it has become a detriment to mission accomplishment.

 

[Herc_Dude]

You keep bringing up the body armor and vehicle armor issues. It's old news.

Come on now, old news that still provokes emotional responses among the uninformed and that are politically expedient never get old! :sleep_125

 

[ea6bflyr]

Discounting the additional expenditures for retiree/dependent benefits, wouldn't there still be ample cash to buy armor for our vehicles and troops on the ground?

With a budget of over half a trillion dollars for the military, don't you suppose our gear in Iraq ought to have armor? Also, IEDs didn't exist during WW2. Different war, different circumstances, different environment.

WTF are you talking about? Have you actually been over there? :icon_rage Take this from a guy that was sent over doing a boots-on-ground IA, all of the equipment we had was new and good-to-go. Also, EVERY VEHICLE that goes outside the wire has the latest ARMOR technology. QUIT TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS!

You, my friend, are an IDIOT. Negative reps for you!!

-ea6bflyr

 

[nittany03]

WTF are you talking about? Have you actually been over there? :icon_rage Take this from a guy that was sent over doing a boots-on-ground IA, all of the equipment we had was new and good-to-go. Also, EVERY VEHICLE that goes outside the wire has the latest ARMOR technology. QUIT TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS!

You, my friend, are an IDIOT. Negative reps for you!!

-ea6bflyr

See, you just don't get it. The fact that you were over there means that you obviously failed at life and had no other options but to sign up for the military because society failed at giving you a sufficient welfare program to avoid having to barbecue babies and carpet-bomb innocent Iraqis for a living. So you're obviously desperately in need of his sage knowledges acquired from diligent study of the New York Times and CNN.