The Watering Hole

Hookbender — May 14, 2010Yeah, sure. Until they ship you to Afganastan or Iraq for a little vacation. Then your seperated from your family with limited contact and face the possibility of being blown up or shot at any moment. And, your family knows this and has to live with the danger of your job.

I'd say that pay was fine in peace time while you earn your degree or get trained for a trade. War time, well, it ain't so great in my book.

That's why if we have other options we don't sign up.

Let's face it, if you sign up for the military now, it's on you.  You know there is a war in Iraq and in Afghanistan.  I'm not saying it's a good idea.  

But, on the other hand, there is an 8% chance you will be stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan, given current numbers (173,000 troops in those theaters, 1.45 million in the armed forces).  If you were 18 with no prospects, would 8% be a safe enough bet to make a guaranteed ~40k, get healthcare, etc?

fingers — May 14, 2010It's fucking hilarious really - after all these debt arguments
the urgency of making cuts and being ruthless.

Then we get an argument that sums up as

Make cuts to everything except that part of government I am about to join
I would prefer a rise for them - but cuts everywhere else.

Yeah right :)

again, missing the point of the entire discussion. i was trying to illustrate that the article i referenced showed welfare recipients receiving a larger increase than military pay. i don't want to argue military pay blows,  because it doesn't. it isn't spectacular, but middle of the road. i simply think our priorities are a bit off

charger — May 14, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1273380853/25#46 date=1273826242]Yeah, sure. Until they ship you to Afganastan or Iraq for a little vacation. Then your seperated from your family with limited contact and face the possibility of being blown up or shot at any moment. And, your family knows this and has to live with the danger of your job.


Let's face it, if you sign up for the military now, it's on you.  You know there is a war in Iraq and in Afghanistan.  I'm not saying it's a good idea.  

it should be taken as a fact of life you will be deployed somewhere in your 8 year commitment at least once. the current deployment schedule GOAL they are working towards is 1 year deployed 3 years home. its more like 1:2 ratio right now for combat arms

chase — May 14, 2010[quote author=fingers link=1273380853/25#48 date=1273837027]It's fucking hilarious really - after all these debt arguments
the urgency of making cuts and being ruthless.

Then we get an argument that sums up as

Make cuts to everything except that part of government I am about to join
I would prefer a rise for them - but cuts everywhere else.

Yeah right :)

again, missing the point of the entire discussion. i was trying to illustrate that the article i referenced showed welfare recipients receiving a larger increase than military pay. i don't want to argue military pay blows,  because it doesn't. it isn't spectacular, but middle of the road. i simply think our priorities are a bit off

You still haven't posted any proof that there is a welfare increase.  Newsmax is not proof, and I went through three pages of google search results without finding a single verifiable mention of this.  Please post a reliable source, or drop this as the "factual basis" of your argument.

You, too, can use factcheck.org, my friend.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/misleading-on-military-pay/index.html

relevant, choice quotes:

It’s also true that this will be the lowest raise the military has had since it became an all-volunteer force in 1973 — including Obama’s last proposed pay raise, which was much higher at 2.9 percent (Congress bumped it up to 3.4). But that number is not pulled from thin air, or even calculated based on how much is available in the budget. U.S. Code dictates a rather complex equation for military pay raises, based on the Employment Cost Index, a measure compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to track the costs of labor for businesses. Military pay increases by "the percentage (rounded to the nearest one-tenth of one percent) by which the ECI for the base quarter of the year before the preceding year exceeds the ECI for the base quarter of the second year before the preceding calendar year (if at all)." Specifically, the code states, that’s the ECI for wages and salaries of private industry workers.

If that’s confusing, here’s the short version: When the ECI goes up, so does military pay, so that military salaries don’t fall behind civilian ones. So because the ECI increased 1.4 percent in 2009, that’s the proposed military pay raise in 2010. The raise is unusually low, but that’s because the ECI increase was unprecedentedly small — the smallest percent change since the series began in 1975, according to BLS.

As for the "pay increase" for "welfare recipients," that’s a fabrication. First of all, "welfare recipients" refers to beneficiaries of a number of different programs. Many of those, like Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, are state-administered, meaning that states decide how to allocate the funds they’re allotted. There is no single federally mandated annual pay increase for people receiving government assistance.

All done?

if you want to attack the definition of "welfare" than so be it. the fact remains that the amount given out each year continues to go up, and on average it will be higher than what .mil pay will go up this year. now, moving on past the welfare thing the postal service gets more of a raise this year as well (1.9%). on average they make 80k/year. that is for a "business" that loses money chronically. nobody is targeting them for cuts...

i would really prefer to drop the whole issue though, as it is coming across like i'm complaining about my pay. i'm not. i knew what it was when i signed the contract. i'm simply trying to highlight some areas where we could reduce spending to prevent a fate similiar to what is about to befall the entire eurozone

chase — May 14, 2010if you want to attack the definition of "welfare" than so be it. the fact remains that the amount given out each year continues to go up, and on average it will be higher than what .mil pay will go up this year. now, moving on past the welfare thing the postal service gets more of a raise this year as well (1.9%). on average they make 80k/year. that is for a "business" that loses money chronically. nobody is targeting them for cuts...

Chase, there is no proof for any raise in welfare.  No cost of living increase for social security.  I posted some articles where some states hadn't changed their welfare benefits in 22 years.  I'm not sure what you are talking about.  Find me a number that is not based on a Facebook rumor.  

Military got a 3.4% increase this year.  FY2011 is proposed at 1.4%, which is the number determined by the actual cost of living increase in the country.  Doesn't that make sense as a benchmark?  Normally you are fiscally conservative, it seems like that would be an admirable benchmark for fiscal conservatism--tie the increase to the real world.  From what I read, that number has always been arrived at by looking at cost of living increases.  

The Postal service not targeted for cuts?  Did you miss the whole postal service discussion we had?  They are aiming to cut Saturday service, close branches, eliminate retiree benefits...  thousands of people will lose jobs, have hours reduced, and get cuts to their pay and benefits.

80k/yr...really?

chase — May 14, 2010[quote author=fingers link=1273380853/25#48 date=1273837027]It's fucking hilarious really - after all these debt arguments
the urgency of making cuts and being ruthless.

Then we get an argument that sums up as

Make cuts to everything except that part of government I am about to join
I would prefer a rise for them - but cuts everywhere else.

Yeah right :)

again, missing the point of the entire discussion. i was trying to illustrate that the article i referenced showed welfare recipients receiving a larger increase than military pay. i don't want to argue military pay blows,  because it doesn't. it isn't spectacular, but middle of the road. i simply think our priorities are a bit off

Err - the title of this thread is "why we will follow greece"

Not some military discussion. you have turned it into.

First thing - you said that I was talking crap when I mentioned that armies worldwide and for hundreds of years have operated on a ration system
as part of pay.
You need to read some military history - it has nothing to do with finance and more to do with discipline and control over lower ranks.

Second - the issue of pay rises wrt welfare - I have no idea or interest in the welfare system in the US, could not care less about it.
with welfare you pay them as little as possible (using food stamps to direct the use - see military) so you keep them from rebelling and creating a greater cost
to contain throug security

But in a free market capitalist system you pay only what you need to get someone to do the job.

It is called the market, something you claim to defend.

So unless you can demonstrate that wages need to go up as recruitment is suffering then it is moot.

The military is ~20% of spending in a budget that needs to be cut, and closer to 25% or even 30% if you include a wider definition of "defence" spending, including the Bushisms added.

The military is the single biggest socialist government program, it doesn't have any checks or balances, it simply seeks  to grow.

You mentioned the loss making post office - well at least that loss making government entity is subject to market forces.

Where are the market forces in the military ?

US forces are big and the massive outspend the rest of the world has gained the US superiority,
but is it efficient ?

How would you even judge something like that,

But considering that vast outspend, US special forces are low down the pecking order worldwide.
The last lot you would want to be rescued by if you were a hostage - they would just blow you up with the terrorists.

If I had someone I cared about in that unfortunate situation I would hope for UK, Israel or French special forces - yes even Russians.
The US would be way down the list - Swiss or Aussies would be next on the list, not even sure where the US would be.

Why - because the US is military industrialised, a collective borg like military with doctrine based on putting technological advantage up front.

Sure you can win big conflicts - but they dont happen, you have outspent everyone on that.

So yes - the US military needs to be taken to task in a spending review.

It also needs to be restructured wisely so it is more useful and capable to fight the wars it will have to fight.

Which means less grunts - i.e.  fewer but better more professional soldiers.

It is a job creation scheme as most of the grunt level is simply welfare kids.
That may have a socialism function that overall benefits the US - but it is not a military function.

The US is still geared up to fight WW2 with  no available adversary
It's on allergic trigger happy response mode - the real power of the terrorist is that they can leverage your reactions.

Like a peanut allergy - the peanut doesn't harm you - your body does with a reaction that can kill you.

The Iraq war only happened because the military was at a level available to politicians to play with like that.

If they had to prepare and build up they would have time to decide against it.

Read history - military build up is not passive, it is an integral part of the reason why it is used.

i'm glad you have US .mil doctrine planned out. you should though, with your vast wealth of intelligence on current capabilities and logistics, and long length career in the intelligence business. i'll call rob gates and give him this i.p. address; you can expect him to get back with you any day now regarding the complete restructuring of US doctrine.

charger — May 14, 2010[quote author=chase link=1273380853/50#55 date=1273868774]if you want to attack the definition of "welfare" than so be it. the fact remains that the amount given out each year continues to go up, and on average it will be higher than what .mil pay will go up this year. now, moving on past the welfare thing the postal service gets more of a raise this year as well (1.9%). on average they make 80k/year. that is for a "business" that loses money chronically. nobody is targeting them for cuts...

Chase, there is no proof for any raise in welfare.  No cost of living increase for social security.  I posted some articles where some states hadn't changed their welfare benefits in 22 years.  I'm not sure what you are talking about.  Find me a number that is not based on a Facebook rumor.  

Military got a 3.4% increase this year.  FY2011 is proposed at 1.4%, which is the number determined by the actual cost of living increase in the country.  Doesn't that make sense as a benchmark?  Normally you are fiscally conservative, it seems like that would be an admirable benchmark for fiscal conservatism--tie the increase to the real world.  From what I read, that number has always been arrived at by looking at cost of living increases.  

The Postal service not targeted for cuts?  Did you miss the whole postal service discussion we had?  They are aiming to cut Saturday service, close branches, eliminate retiree benefits...  thousands of people will lose jobs, have hours reduced, and get cuts to their pay and benefits.

i didn't see the post office discussion. ONCE AGAIN I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH MILITARY PAY. the way the army makes "cuts" is very similar to the way the free market does and I have no problem with it. if you get really bored you can see how they manipulate promotion rates and offer buyout incentives to get people to retire early. we went through it in the 90's and it worked too well. took us 10 years to get back to where we were early-mid 2000's. i wouldn't be upset if the military got no pay increase if the cost of living didn't go up; so long as every other federal job had the same limitation. which brings me back to the point i was trying to make by mentioning military pay all along. i am simply advocating giving them pay on level with every other federal employee. it isn't right now, and that is a simple fact. hell, the average private sector job isn't even on par with average federal employee salary.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip


please read the above story. it should piss you off

chase — May 15, 2010i'm glad you have US .mil doctrine planned out. you should though, with your vast wealth of intelligence on current capabilities and logistics, and long length career in the intelligence business. i'll call rob gates and give him this i.p. address; you can expect him to get back with you any day now regarding the complete restructuring of US doctrine.

Oh shit don't call that twat and send him the ip address
he might find out I have tourettes and called him a cunt.
sorry - fuckface - and send in the fuckers.
Who the fuck is he anyway - do I fucking care - nope.

Thanks - put him on

I will explain to him your view that  to reform welfare you need a long history of being on the welfare tit.

Being wet behind the ears,  naive and idealistic about your plans to join the army don't make you an expert on the subject pal.

And you need to learn something about ip addresses

chase — May 12, 2010

i'm not so naive as to think we couldn't trim up the defense budget as well. the one thing i would put off the table are cuts to military pay.

err - you started by stating this - everything flows from this.

You want to cut everything else - apart from that.

Errm - it doesn't take an expert to work out why does it soldier

fingers — May 15, 2010[quote author=chase link=1273380853/0#16 date=1273635484]

i'm not so naive as to think we couldn't trim up the defense budget as well. the one thing i would put off the table are cuts to military pay.

err - you started by stating this - everything flows from this.

You want to cut everything else - apart from that.

Errm - it doesn't take an expert to work out why does it soldier

I would be opposed to cutting military pay also. It's pretty much been established that starting pay is lower middle class income at best. What would you prefer our military pay to be? Goddamn, there are so many other places to cut spending, why bother with the small piss ant cut in military pay? That's shit compared to what can be cut elsewhere.  

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States?wasRedirected=true

Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.

In the other thread you are concerned about 8bn and how it all adds up
8bn is rounding error here
 

Kinda like the 12 billion in cash in Iraq...footballs o' cash freeflowin'! Well...at least it was Iraqi money.  

$400/gallon of gas adds up though.

fingers — May 15, 2010http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States?wasRedirected=true

Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.

In the other thread you are concerned about 8bn and how it all adds up
8bn is rounding error here
 

I said I don't favor cutting military pay. I could care less about any other cut. Cut away. Hell, just bring our troops home and get completely out of Iraq and Afganastan for that matter. What's that, around 900 billion in savings to end the wars? Fine with me.  Obama could even shut down the prison like he said he would do, that would help too.

Interesting stuff, Chase.  I agree, government workers make way too much.  I'm not sure why.  The reasons outlined in the article are this:

•Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

•Pay caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.

No matter what you guys say, at least Obama appears to be consistent on trying to reduce spending...

Yeah, just forget the facts and listen to Charger. I can't believe you said that Charger. ;D ;D ;D

Are you really Stratman? ;D ;D

He's recommended the lowest pay increases in 30 or 40 years for federal employees in two different branches of government.  Is that or is that not progress?

What would you be happy with?  

Well, to start with, fairness. To the tax payer.

If the cost of living isn't going up, or up the year the employees got raises, it went down, for example, I'd be pissed that they got raises. And before anyone got a raise, I'd like the president to do what he said before any raise was given, to go over the budget line by line and make cuts to any, any, unnecessary spending. I'm pretty sure no one would need a raise compared to private sector pay doing the same type work. But hey, I could be wrong. And as I've stated before, the government needs to be smaller than it is right now. At present, it's getting larger.

So I guess no raise until the president did the first, and most important thing, before considering that in the first place. Make some massive cuts in government spending including eliminating programs that are not effective. I believe that's what he saiod he would do. Eliminate unnessary spending first. Very important, imo. That would be my answer to your question. I think that's a fair request. Don't you?  

Hookbender — May 18, 2010Well, to start with, fairness. To the tax payer.

If the cost of living isn't going up, or up the year the employees got raises, it went down, for example, I'd be pissed that they got raises. And before anyone got a raise, I'd like the president to do what he said before any raise was given, to go over the budget line by line and make cuts to any, any, unnecessary spending. I'm pretty sure no one would need a raise compared to private sector pay doing the same type work. But hey, I could be wrong. And as I've stated before, the government needs to be smaller than it is right now. At present, it's getting larger.

So I guess no raise until the president did the first, and most important thing, before considering that in the first place. Make some massive cuts in government spending including eliminating programs that are not effective. I believe that's what he saiod he would do. Eliminate unnessary spending first. Very important, imo. That would be my answer to your question. I think that's a fair request. Don't you?  

Sure. The president does not, however, have a line-item veto. Reagan tried to get one and failed.  Obama will likely fail too.  We'll see how the 2011 budget ends up looking.  My guess is earmarks will be way down.  And no, I'm not forgetting that earmarks are less than 1% of the budget.

fingers — May 15, 2010http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States?wasRedirected=true

Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.

In the other thread you are concerned about 8bn and how it all adds up
8bn is rounding error here
 

check out how much of that goes to salary, and get back to me. Peanuts

fingers — May 15, 2010[quote author=chase link=1273380853/50#60 date=1273892168]i'm glad you have US .mil doctrine planned out. you should though, with your vast wealth of intelligence on current capabilities and logistics, and long length career in the intelligence business. i'll call rob gates and give him this i.p. address; you can expect him to get back with you any day now regarding the complete restructuring of US doctrine.

Oh shit don't call that twat and send him the ip address
he might find out I have tourettes and called him a cunt.
sorry - fuckface - and send in the fuckers.
Who the fuck is he anyway - do I fucking care - nope.

Thanks - put him on  :P

you really are dense aren't you. Robert gates is the secretary of defense. The point I was making is you have no idea what you are talking about. The entire post was sarcasm. The thought that someone would try and contact you about some assanine Internet message board post is sad. Also, I'm not the one acting like I know it all.

I will explain to him your view that  to reform welfare you need a long history of being on the welfare tit.

Being wet behind the ears,  naive and idealistic about your plans to join the army don't make you an expert on the subject pal.

And you need to learn something about ip addresses

Look I know who Robert Gates is
I was ridiculing you and your pathetic recourse to authority
as argument.

I could say why don't we get Obama here to listen to your "theories" of economics.


The biggest component of expenditure in any organisation is the payroll
and the costs of employment - kitting out, training, facilities etc.

Here's what Gates has to say

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/09/gates.defense/index.html


If you want cuts the miltary is obviously  going to take a chunk of it.

they will, undoubtedly. i think pay should be left alone, just my opinion. alot more people in government get paid alot more money to do alot less work.

chase — May 23, 2010they will, undoubtedly. i think pay should be left alone, just my opinion. alot more people in government get paid alot more money to do alot less work.

Pretty much a given that the harder you actually work, the less you make, right?  Ask a CEO.