The W
Views: 95795663
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.4.14 0002
The W - Current Events & Politics - HAwks and Doves?
This thread has 73 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.15
Pages: 1 2 Next
(1459 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (26 total)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.86
It is pretty apparent from this board and the media that liberal = pacifist wimp and conservative = strong military. When did this happen? In the Vietnam Era that I grew up in it was hawks and doves. You could be conservative and against the war and although much less common, the opposite was true. Roosevelt (FDR), Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were "liberal" on social and economic policy but were not doves.

As a liberal Democrat who believes in a strong defense and secure borders, I am frustrated that people assume because I am a liberal, I am not for a strong, well-equipped military.

So I guess the question is whay do liberal and conservative labels automatically confer you a stand on military and security issues?



Perception is reality
Promote this thread!
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.97
I dont know, I am not a full fledged conservative, I favor pro choice, and a few other left leaning stances on issues, but favor the right on Military matters, and defense.

Its a shame we cant really have a three part system for America.



Thank you for your irrelevant opinion.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 298 days
Last activity: 298 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.60
I'd put the roots back to '72 and the McGovern campaign as for when the liberal ='s wimp tag was placed on the Democrats. Carter with the National Malaise and letting the Iranians humiliate him every day didn't help the Democrats much (plus his hissy fit regarding the Olympics after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan), and Dukakis became the embodiement of the idea when he looked like an idiot riding a tank. Throw in Clinton's foggy Vietnam record (I'm being nice today), and the fact that many of the anti-war 'hippies' of the 60's became Democrats due to their hatred of Nixon, and that helped established a 30 plus year view of Democrats as 'wimps'.
As for the Republicans, it all started with Reagan and the Iranians thinking he would nuke them if they didn't release the hostages. That separated him from the Carter legacy. Reagan stood up to the Soviets where Carter appeared weak helped the Republican-strong/Democrat-weak philosophy, and then Bush 1 looking strong as his wimp label was shed just by not being Dukakis. Throw in Gulf War I (which, due to some of my beliefs, we should have waited until Saddam took out the House of Saud first, thus ridding the World of them, and then we could have rid the world of Saddam and avoided a bunch of stuff from the past decade, but, as I've stated before, I hate the House of Saud) and the Republicans appear to be the party that knows how to use the military while the Democrats are the party that sends former Presidential candidates to kiss up to the enemy (Jackson, Jesse).
And of course, the fact that Drunk Teddy Kennedy became a leading symbol of the Democratic Party helped to tarnish their reputation. Funny thing though. I despise his (retarded)son, who I'm stuck with as a Congressman. But, to give the nitwit his due, he is somewhat strong on defense, unlike his father.



Why is TVLand stealing my ideas from DEAN's Workrate Report's? They had to be stealing, as I thought I had the only demented mind that could put Bea Arthur and Abe Vigoda in a sex scene.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 17 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.35
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    It is pretty apparent from this board and the media that liberal = pacifist wimp and conservative = strong military. When did this happen? In the Vietnam Era that I grew up in it was hawks and doves. You could be conservative and against the war and although much less common, the opposite was true. Roosevelt (FDR), Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were "liberal" on social and economic policy but were not doves.

    As a liberal Democrat who believes in a strong defense and secure borders, I am frustrated that people assume because I am a liberal, I am not for a strong, well-equipped military.

    So I guess the question is whay do liberal and conservative labels automatically confer you a stand on military and security issues?


I think, Doc, that so many who are socially liberal have shown,once they got power, that they were doves, that we believe all libs are doves.

Look, Kerry's voted against just about every weapon plan, every new tool, every increase for the Defense department, while voting FOR every welfare, social program and BS pork to a democratic state. Whatever he says now, he's a dove. It's hard to associate libs with a strong defense because they all vote against it in the legislative branch.

The stance of true conservatives is that the only real purpose of the federal government is to provide for defense, so that's something to actually spend money on.



Rasslin' republicans - visit it soon
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 15 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      It is pretty apparent from this board and the media that liberal = pacifist wimp and conservative = strong military. When did this happen? In the Vietnam Era that I grew up in it was hawks and doves. You could be conservative and against the war and although much less common, the opposite was true. Roosevelt (FDR), Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were "liberal" on social and economic policy but were not doves.

      As a liberal Democrat who believes in a strong defense and secure borders, I am frustrated that people assume because I am a liberal, I am not for a strong, well-equipped military.

      So I guess the question is whay do liberal and conservative labels automatically confer you a stand on military and security issues?


    I think, Doc, that so many who are socially liberal have shown,once they got power, that they were doves, that we believe all libs are doves.

    Look, Kerry's voted against just about every weapon plan, every new tool, every increase for the Defense department, while voting FOR every welfare, social program and BS pork to a democratic state. Whatever he says now, he's a dove. It's hard to associate libs with a strong defense because they all vote against it in the legislative branch.

    The stance of true conservatives is that the only real purpose of the federal government is to provide for defense, so that's something to actually spend money on.


I suppose its not possible to think our military is good enough as it is now? I suppose its not possible to think we should maintain a strong military, but think we could cut back some and still have the strongest military in the world?

Not supporting an expanding military (or even supporting cutting the military) is not the same thing as saying the government should not provide a strong defense. Why increase military funding when we already spend hundreds of billions more on our defense than most other countries (if not all) in the world?
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 17 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.35
Historically, our defense has been around 8 or 9 percent of GDP. Under Bush#1 it was down in the 5s, after the Soviet Union fell. Clinton dropped it to 3% - closed so many bases and underpaid our folks. Bush has it back up to a HUGE 3.7%. Most of that for pay for our kids.

do you want to know what a man who has spent 20 years being a professional soldier makes?

Like 42,000 a year - I'm talking a middle manager at the top of his pay scale, supervising a staff and over 200-1500 people at an administrative level. A low level manager, someone supervising 10 guys with 10 years? 26,000

That's under Bush.

5 years ago, the same guy supervising 200-1500 guys was making about 32000 and the guy with 10 yrs and supervising 10? 21,000
and a new kid, less than a couple years on the job? about 10,000

and I know - there are allowance beyond that. Like the new kid gets a cot and 3 hots and a old guy to yell at him.

But doncha think they deserved a pay raise?

Just as a note: in 1998, France spent a higher percentage of their GDP on defense than we did. Sheesh.




Rasslin' republicans - visit it soon
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 4 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.24
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by AWArulz
        Originally posted by DrDirt
        It is pretty apparent from this board and the media that liberal = pacifist wimp and conservative = strong military. When did this happen? In the Vietnam Era that I grew up in it was hawks and doves. You could be conservative and against the war and although much less common, the opposite was true. Roosevelt (FDR), Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were "liberal" on social and economic policy but were not doves.

        As a liberal Democrat who believes in a strong defense and secure borders, I am frustrated that people assume because I am a liberal, I am not for a strong, well-equipped military.

        So I guess the question is whay do liberal and conservative labels automatically confer you a stand on military and security issues?


      I think, Doc, that so many who are socially liberal have shown,once they got power, that they were doves, that we believe all libs are doves.

      Look, Kerry's voted against just about every weapon plan, every new tool, every increase for the Defense department, while voting FOR every welfare, social program and BS pork to a democratic state. Whatever he says now, he's a dove. It's hard to associate libs with a strong defense because they all vote against it in the legislative branch.

      The stance of true conservatives is that the only real purpose of the federal government is to provide for defense, so that's something to actually spend money on.


    I suppose its not possible to think our military is good enough as it is now? I suppose its not possible to think we should maintain a strong military, but think we could cut back some and still have the strongest military in the world?

    Not supporting an expanding military (or even supporting cutting the military) is not the same thing as saying the government should not provide a strong defense. Why increase military funding when we already spend hundreds of billions more on our defense than most other countries (if not all) in the world?


Well, I read an interesting article by Charlie Reese today that argued that the old cliche that we have the "best trained and equipped military in the world" may be more based on myth than reality. We are trying to do a lot of things with our military, we have our fingers stuck in a lot of pies, and they are stretched thin. We seemed to have trouble supplying many of our soldiers on the ground what should be basic equipment, such as bullet-proof vests. He also noted that our military really hasn't been tested by any formidable foe since Vietnam, and we lost at Vietnam. So maybe we don't have the strongest military in the world, we just perceive that we do.

That said, the military is just as capable of wasting money as any other large bureaucracy, a fact that seems lost on many of my fellow conservatives. (much like more money doesn't necessarily equal better education, for example, more money also doesn't necessarily equal better military for the same reasons) And I've never been convinced that the military isn't top-heavy as an organization. It also may spend too much money on long-shot high risk, high technology projects and not enough just providing basic pay, training, and equipment to the grunt guys on the ground. (not to say that you shouldn't roll the dice on certain developmental projects, and we certainly have made great technological advancements in warfare) I am almost certain that the military wastes money, and should be held more accountable for their budgeting practices.



Everything that is wrong in this world can be blamed on Freddie Prinze Jr.
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 152 days
Last activity: 146 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.60

    Originally posted by ges7184
    , and we lost at Vietnam. So maybe we don't have the strongest military in the world, we just perceive that we do.


That was THIRTY YEARS ago, with the military's hands tied behind it's back. C'mon, if the government had allowed the troops from Day One to go into the North and take care of business it would've been over in months with a victory. I'm not saying things would have been any better because of it, but still. It's an invalid comparison to 2004.

The military has improved quite a bit since then, as other countries' have faded.



"In the sky. Lord, in the sky..."
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.97
    Originally posted by ges7184
    That said, the military is just as capable of wasting money as any other large bureaucracy, a fact that seems lost on many of my fellow conservatives. (much like more money doesn't necessarily equal better education, for example, more money also doesn't necessarily equal better military for the same reasons) And I've never been convinced that the military isn't top-heavy as an organization. It also may spend too much money on long-shot high risk, high technology projects and not enough just providing basic pay, training, and equipment to the grunt guys on the ground. (not to say that you shouldn't roll the dice on certain developmental projects, and we certainly have made great technological advancements in warfare) I am almost certain that the military wastes money, and should be held more accountable for their budgeting practices.


The problem is, the MILITARY itself doesnt waste money, they are given a budget from the Department of Defense. They have to allot the money for whatever programs they want for thier own services. Meanwhile the DOD and the Pentagon spends money on R&D and on other things that need to be developed for the sake of fighting more effeciently.

During Gulf War 1, everybody heard about the LASER GUIDED MISSLES! that fighter pilots were unleashing. However, if it was CLOUDY or there was too much smoke in the sky, they were useless, therefore 12 years later we have GPS guided weaponry. MILLIONS spent, but the weapons are more accurate and cause less civilian casualties and less colateral damage.

Fact of the matter is, the military horrendously underpays its people. Middle managers who lead troops sometimes qualify for food stamps, or other government aid.
Its a shame, there is a formula for coming up with raises that the federal law states the raise has to be at least one percentage point below a cost of living index. So, even though the government KNOWS its paying its members of the military LESS than what thier counterparts in the civilian world are making (in most cases) they have a law that makes them not ABLE to catch up.





Thank you for your irrelevant opinion.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 15 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Historically, our defense has been around 8 or 9 percent of GDP. Under Bush#1 it was down in the 5s, after the Soviet Union fell. Clinton dropped it to 3% - closed so many bases and underpaid our folks. Bush has it back up to a HUGE 3.7%. Most of that for pay for our kids.

    do you want to know what a man who has spent 20 years being a professional soldier makes?

    Like 42,000 a year - I'm talking a middle manager at the top of his pay scale, supervising a staff and over 200-1500 people at an administrative level. A low level manager, someone supervising 10 guys with 10 years? 26,000

    That's under Bush.

    5 years ago, the same guy supervising 200-1500 guys was making about 32000 and the guy with 10 yrs and supervising 10? 21,000
    and a new kid, less than a couple years on the job? about 10,000

    and I know - there are allowance beyond that. Like the new kid gets a cot and 3 hots and a old guy to yell at him.

    But doncha think they deserved a pay raise?

    Just as a note: in 1998, France spent a higher percentage of their GDP on defense than we did. Sheesh.



First off, I would wager to say 3-4 percent of our GDP still come out to a *wee bit* more actual money than whatever percentage of its GDP France spent. Percentage of your resources used is a silly way to judge things when the amount of money in your country is so much higher than that of the rest of the world.

Also, I would take 10,000 dollars a year if I didn't have to pay room and board, or food expenses, or the other things those in military training get paid for them. I'm assuming the 10,000 per year is a boot camp-type level worker, otherwise I will need a source and doubt that figure. I'm sure there's more too it than you lead on.

Also, maybe the reason pay is so low is because there are so many fucking military workers. I find it ridculous how much this country spends on defense. That doesn't mean I want the military destroyed. I just feel like for 400 billion dollars, I should already be more than safe for centuries. Cut the size of the military, and you can afford to pay those who are actually in positions we need to keep our country safe the amount of money you think they deserve.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 400 days
Last activity: 15 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.10
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Historically, our defense has been around 8 or 9 percent of GDP. Under Bush#1 it was down in the 5s, after the Soviet Union fell. Clinton dropped it to 3% - closed so many bases and underpaid our folks. Bush has it back up to a HUGE 3.7%. Most of that for pay for our kids.



AWA I respect your opinion because I know you used to serve but you are way off here.

Clinton didnt underpay anyone. I know, I served in the CLinton Military for most of my navy career. Our pay raises were just fine. In 1999, 2000, and 2001 Clinton Defense budgets gave some military members u to six pay raises. The 1999 raises were the largest in 20 years.


As for your comment about Clinton closing bases, the Base Realignment and Closure Act was signed by Bush I in 1990. The downsizing of the military was a neceessary action, it needed to happen. In a post Cold war world, we didnt need such a large military. So starting with Reagan, the size of the Military was studied and analyzed, and it was decided the Military should be downsized. Congress decided wahat bases should be closed, not Clinton.


    Originally posted by AWArulz
    >do you want to know what a man who has spent 20 years being a professional soldier makes?

    Like 42,000 a year - I'm talking a middle manager at the top of his pay scale, supervising a staff and over 200-1500 people at an administrative level. A low level manager, someone supervising 10 guys with 10 years? 26,000

    That's under Bush




Youre talking about a Military E-9. Your numbers are a little off. An E-9 with 20 years makes about 53k per year in Base pay. throw in any number of bonuses and allowances that service members make and the pay increases almost another 30k in some cases. I left the Navy last May as an E-5 with eight years of service. With my base pay and allowance i was making almost 40k per year.



    Originally posted by AWArulz
    >5 years ago, the same guy supervising 200-1500 guys was making about 32000 and the guy with 10 yrs and supervising 10? 21,000
    and a new kid, less than a couple years on the job? about 10,000

    and I know - there are allowance beyond that. Like the new kid gets a cot and 3 hots and a old guy to yell at him.

    But doncha think they deserved a pay raise?





Five years ago an E-9 made about 39k without allowances. Adding those allwances adds another 22k. In that year 1999 they began in addition to the usual Jan 1st pay raise they began three years of mid year targeted raises for more senion military members. As an E-4 with four years experience I made about 30k. A new entry into the service made about 11k without boonuses. But most first or second year members receive free room and board.



is all this alot of money? Depends on how you look at it. A good number of military members live quite comfortably on what they make. The military pay problem isnt that we didnt make enough money, its that a good numberof military people dont spend their money wisely. I know, I was one of the Stupid ones for a while. So do our military people deserve more for what they do? Sure, but i want military leadership to teach more financial responsibility to our younger military folks too. No one goes to the Military to get rich. Especially the more senior members, they are serving for the pleasure and honor of serving their country. Throwing money at the problem isnt going to change anything.



    Originally posted by ges7184
    Well, I read an interesting article by Charlie Reese today that argued that the old cliche that we have the "best trained and equipped military in the world" may be more based on myth than reality. We are trying to do a lot of things with our military, we have our fingers stuck in a lot of pies, and they are stretched thin. We seemed to have trouble supplying many of our soldiers on the ground what should be basic equipment, such as bullet-proof vests. He also noted that our military really hasn't been tested by any formidable foe since Vietnam, and we lost at Vietnam. So maybe we don't have the strongest military in the world, we just perceive that we do.

    That said, the military is just as capable of wasting money as any other large bureaucracy, a fact that seems lost on many of my fellow conservatives. (much like more money doesn't necessarily equal better education, for example, more money also doesn't necessarily equal better military for the same reasons) And I've never been convinced that the military isn't top-heavy as an organization. It also may spend too much money on long-shot high risk, high technology projects and not enough just providing basic pay, training, and equipment to the grunt guys on the ground. (not to say that you shouldn't roll the dice on certain developmental projects, and we certainly have made great technological advancements in warfare) I am almost certain that the military wastes money, and should be held more accountable for their budgeting practices.



There is no myth here. The US Military has no equal on the planet. The Navy and the Air Force are the worlds largest. Our Army is not but it is the most lethal. For the last 20 years, Joint training between all the services has molded them into an unbeatable force. And NO ONE harbors any illusions about defeating the United States military.


And yes the military wastes alot of money. I myself probably wasted 100k over eight years. So yes the military should be held more accountable.


To Stagger, your statemtn about laser guided bombs is inaccurate. GPS guided weapons have not replaced laser guided ones. Both are still used. Niether is perfect, but the military spends money to maximize the effectiveness of every weapon in the arsenal.




(edited by rockdotcom_2.0 on 24.3.04 0154)

(edited by rockdotcom_2.0 on 24.3.04 0205)

Well, well, well. If it isn't the serious, elusive, Leroy Green. I've been waiting a long time for this Leroy. I am sick and tired of hearing these bullshit Superman stories about the wassa legendary Bruce Leroy catching bullets with his teeth. Catches bullets with his teeth? Nigga please.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.97
http://www.dfas.mil/ money/milpay/pay/2004paytable.pdf

Here is a link to what the US Military people make these days. Slightly better than when I got out a few years ago.

But, still, most of the services are E-4 or below, and in their first enlistments. Your first year in todays military pays you $14394.10. An E-4 in his first enlistment makes $20,721.60 a year. With the amount of hours worked, the danger of the job, and the time away from home and family, this isn't jack shit. Add to that if the sailor/airman/soldier/marine is stationed any place near Washington DC, or San Diego, where it is more expensive to live, and the people are REALLY living below a comfort level.
I don't think most sailors are living "comfortably" when 90% of them would be homeless if they didn't have that payday on the 1st and 15th.


DO most young military members mismanage money? Certainly, and the reasons are varied, and really are a whole other discussion. However, I think that calling the military anything but underpaid is not quite accurate. Sure e6 and up are living pretty decent lives, compared to the ones below them, but it isn't like they are living LARGE by any stretch of the imagination.

All the Special bonuses and extra money are there to entice people to do jobs the majority of the US Population won't, or can't. Or, it is to allow the member to live with his family in a house that isn't on the "wrong side of town".

As a side note, I looked up how much I was making in my first year back in 1989: $8176.80. (WOW!)

[QUOTE]Also, I would take 10,000 dollars a year if I didn't have to pay room and board, or food expenses, or the other things those in military training get paid for them. I'm assuming the 10,000 per year is a boot camp-type level worker, otherwise I will need a source and doubt that figure. I'm sure there's more too it than you lead on.

Also, maybe the reason pay is so low is because there are so many fucking military workers. I find it ridiculous how much this country spends on defense. That doesn't mean I want the military destroyed. I just feel like for 400 billion dollars, I should already be more than safe for centuries. Cut the size of the military, and you can afford to pay those who are actually in positions we need to keep our country safe the amount of money you think they deserve.[/QUOTE]

Oh, where to begin. First off, if you think sharing a room with 3 other people, a room that is about the size of your bedroom at home is a nice way to live, then sign up!
If you think that the food is available for free, you have another thing coming as well. Its free, if you don't get the sometimes available extra money, and you can be at the chow hall every day during the VERY limited times they are open. Lets also take into account that most military food quality isn't "worth" the free price tag. Also, if you work on one side of the base, and get 1/2 an hour for lunch, and the chow hall is on the other side of the base, guess what? You are paying out of pocket for food, because you wont be able to get there and back in time.

You may find it ridiculous how much this country spends on defense, but, to be fair, no foreign army has marched into your hometown this week have they? You do have the right to do and say as you please. That is all thanks to the people serving in the military today, and for the past 229 or so years. And again, the budget isn't "here's a few billion, go buy some tanks" its "here is some extra pay for you serving in a combat zone" or "here is your medical insurance" or its "here is your substandard government housing". If you think the military has enough people, ask one of the troops over in Iraq who has been there a year now, where all the "extra" people are. Ask the guy standing two watches every 3 days in port where the "extra" people are. Ask the guys who are filling billets of those two or three pay grades above them where the "extra" people are.
Or, you may think that standing on a helo deck all night long, after working your NORMAL job for 18 hours a day, four to five days a week is worth $150/month. But hey, THEY GOT FREE HOUSES AND FOOD! So, fuck them! Right? Wrong! There are thousands of 18 year old kids all over the world, doing things to help preserve your way of life and your liberties, and to insult them by calling them overpaid and not needed is blatantly ignorant to what they do on a daily basis and is a grave disservice to them.





Thank you for your irrelevant opinion.
Iago
Chourico








Since: 17.2.04
From: Eugene, Oregon

Since last post: 2925 days
Last activity: 2227 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
This is the kinda topic I live for, and I just realized how sad that statement is.

Everyone should go look at "Fog of War," a documentary, that is mostly based on former Secretary of Defense MacNamara, who served under Kennedy and Johnson, and the engineer of our involvement during 'Nam. Alas I missed it when it was in town, and am kicking myself for that fact, so the particulars escape me.

I am a leftist, severely so, but I am not an idiot. Personally I am a pacifist, to a point. I know the phrasing on that doesn't make sense, so I will explain. I am not the agressor, and generally I wont respond to violence with violence, there are other ways. But there are times when one must use force to either prevent violence or halt concurrent violence. To make it a bit clearer, because well I am a bit unclear at times with my words, go ahead and hit me, odds are I wont fight back, at first. Eventually I will respond. When violence is directed at people I care about, or even strangers, well I am apt to respond faster.

Now is this a good framework for national defense? Nope. I will freely admit to that, so I wont hold the government on the same grounds with which I would an individual person. Except on one point: that it is suppose to protect us, and by protect I mean the physical safety of us, the people of the country. The subjective interests of the people are not what our armed forces are for.

So should the military be funded? Yeah. Does it receive the lionshare of the money taxed from the citizens? Yes. Now before you cry foul on this point look, just look. I am not just referring to the simple operating costs of the military, but also anything that is associated with it. The numbers add up, and lasted I checked it was well over fifty percent. Is this money needed? I have no clue, I am not a fiscal planner, and I wont presume to have an answer, but I know it looks like we are over spending. And I also include the intelligence agencies. While they are not strictly considered a military force they do serve the function of protecting the people.

I support a military. But there is provisos to my support. That we have a skilled and effective military. That the military's primary concern is with the defense of the people and it's government. And that the military is managed, and run effectively, so as to be fiscally, and strategically sound. These are not big requests on my part, at least I feel so.


I am leary of huge spending towards the military, because:

A) It has a nasty track record of investing into new "toys." By that I meant the stuff that's effectiveness is for crap, the other stuff that seems to have little if any usefulness.
B) The money has to come from somewhere, and with large taxcuts it means other programs are getting the axe, or we're borrowing.
C) *Cough cough* Halliburton's contract in Irag, and other SNAFUs.
D) As StaggerLee said, they ain't spending it on the the majority of people in the service, something that familes of servicepeople have been protestings loudly, though it is not often picked up by media outlets. Though most of lower pays is seen by the lower ranks, but still it is a bit hard for someone to live on those lower ranking Salaries, and the military should definately give wages that place people above the poverty line.
E) School of Americas (or whatever it's called now). Where we train officers and soldiers for Central and South American dictatorships. And I don't mean this in a nice way.


Again I am a liberal, but I am not an idiot. I respect people who have served, and even more so the people who served in combat. They deserve better than they've been treated. However it does not mean I am obliged to respect the institution of the military, particularly in it's contemporary incarnation.



(edited by Iago on 24.3.04 0122)

(edited by Iago on 24.3.04 0129)

Nothing says I love you quite like a piledriver
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 400 days
Last activity: 15 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.32
Stagger

I think you're making the situation seem more dire than it really is for military people. yes an E-1 makes just 14k a year. Yes that doesn't seem like a lot of money, but thats just BASE pay. You are compensated for the danger of your job (Haz Duty pay, Combat Zone pay), you're compensated for time away from home (family sep pay), and you're also compensated if you are stationed in an area with a high cost of living like San Diego or DC (Cost of living allowance or COLA). If you get married or have kids you are entitled to Basic housing allowance (BAH).


and, stagg wouldn't ALL of us on this board be homeless without a job?

I'm not saying that military members are overpaid, I still think they deserve more money, but not THAT much more. Like I said in my earlier posts, throwing money at it isn't going to solve the Militarys pay problems.


One of the problems that plagues the military is the high number of young parents. Ive seen this first hand as a supervisor. I had a guy that worked for me. He was 21 years old, he had been in three years. He had a 20 year old wife that didn't work and two babies at home. And not surprisingly he had financial problems. And this kind of thing is not an uncommon problem on bases all over, it drives the supervisors insane. Too many young military people join up and immediately get married and spit out a few babies. And I'm not saying we should make rules against this, but I myself just wish somehow we could instill in them that getting married at 20 and having 5 kids may not be a wise thing. But thats another argument.


On free room and board, I don't know when you got out Stagg but things have changed a great deal in the last few years in regards to the quality of housing. One of the great things that happened under Clinton's watch was military housing for both married and single people was upgraded dramatically. Here in Hampton Roads ALL base housing has been upgraded from the mid 90s. On the bases, almost all bachelor housing has been changed to very nice two or one man college dormitory style housing. Of course you still have thousands of Navy sailors living on ships but they are trying to fix that too. Also, Most are not standing duty watches every three days, due to changes duty days now are 10 days apart in some places.


I'm not saying that complaints about the military pay scale aren't justified, but also, I fell i have to tell you, that the situation is not as bleak as some would have you believe.






Well, well, well. If it isn't the serious, elusive, Leroy Green. I've been waiting a long time for this Leroy. I am sick and tired of hearing these bullshit Superman stories about the wassa legendary Bruce Leroy catching bullets with his teeth. Catches bullets with his teeth? Nigga please.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1088 days
Last activity: 885 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Base housing is still pretty bad in some places, though. I went through Florida on a trip for work and the housing at MacDill AFB is light years beyond what it was at Eglin AFB.



AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 17 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.35
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    As a side note, I looked up how much I was making in my first year back in 1989: $8176.80.


Yeah, I did too - got out in '79 as a 4 - my TOP pay was $6847.20 - woo-hoo! Of course, I got the top of a bunk-bed out of the deal!

Clearly, a man who is risking his life (or a woman, for that matter) deserves enough pay to feed his family. Is what they pay now enough? I think it's certainly better than when I was in. It's one of the main reasons I am out. (of course, were I still in, I'd be retired - and wouldn't that ROCK?!)



Rasslin' republicans - visit it soon
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3567 days
Last activity: 3036 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.94
But guys...

You get guns. REALLY COOL guns, to boot. And you get to drive tanks and battleships and fighter planes and helicopters.. How could you ask to be paid for doing something as neat as THAT?

Seriously, though, it should be criminal that with the amount of money that gets taken out of our taxes for "national defense" such a tiny percentage winds up going to the people who put their asses on the line for it, with the majority going to some jackasses and their pet research projects. They get away with wasting so much money on shit that's either useless or so expensive as to be useless, and nobody seems to have the balls to say "nope, sorry, we're not giving you any more money to research talking bullets" because they'd be OMG UNDERMINING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.97
rocdotcom, I totally understand where you are coming from. I got out in 2002, however was at an air force base for the last 4 years, so when I left good old Hampton Roads, it was still a crap hole.

And, the problems with why so many have problems, like I said earlier isn't entirely the fault of their pay. Young parents, EZ Credit, wives not knowing how to spend/save while hubby is away, etc are all reasons.

I just think that once the member becomes E4, his pay should increase SIGNIFICANTLY more than it does now. Provides and incentive to do better on evals, advancement tests, and other areas that are tangibly measured.

If people are really getting 10 section duty, I am happy for them. My last Navy Command (USS SAN JACINTO CG-56) was on 3 section duty for nearly the entire time I was there. My last duty shore duty (NAVY shore duty) was in 4 section, with dogged weekends.
If all that has changed, then leaders may FINALLY be realizing what ADM Boorda was talking about when he was preaching Quality of Life initiatives.



Thank you for your irrelevant opinion.
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 8 hours
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.00
    Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
    There is no myth here. The US Military has no equal on the planet. The Navy and the Air Force are the worlds largest. Our Army is not but it is the most lethal. For the last 20 years, Joint training between all the services has molded them into an unbeatable force. And NO ONE harbors any illusions about defeating the United States military.


I had a good friend of mine who did a 3 year stint in the Army, and I asked him who, if anyone, they were worried about. He stated that in terms of technology and training, no one. But in terms of sheer size, they were very worried about anything involving China. He said their numbers alone could balance things...

Just curious if you agree with his assesment.....



"He's like Billy Joel, if Billy Joel didn't suck."
- Ted C. on Jonathan Richman
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 43 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.46
    Originally posted by Leroy
    I had a good friend of mine who did a 3 year stint in the Army, and I asked him who, if anyone, they were worried about. He stated that in terms of technology and training, no one. But in terms of sheer size, they were very worried about anything involving China. He said their numbers alone could balance things...

    Just curious if you agree with his assesment.....


In the past I would definitely agree with this assessment, but in the nuclear age I'm not so sure that it applies anymore...
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.15
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Canada finally gets to Colonialism
Next thread: One less mystery substance in the sand to worry about... Cali beaches ban smoking
Previous thread: AP: Israel Kills Hamas Founder
(1459 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Hurr hurr he's a Duh-mo-crat and he went to Money gall. Cuz they hate money, see.
- Mike Zeidler, Stuck (2011)
The W - Current Events & Politics - HAwks and Doves?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.143 seconds.