Warmack----Again, I have not said to defund the military---I have said cuts need to be made. Nor did I suggest soldiers pay should be changed, but there are other cuts than can be made without hurting solider---this I believe. Was not being personal-----and I know that I will get attacked for this, and PLEASE DO NOT think it is meant directly at you, but as a hypothetical question I have never understood..here it is
If people have a job and their duties to perform are outlined and they are paid based on supply and demand, how skilled the labor is, ect. Why do we get so bent out of shape about military? They are paid a wage to do a job, just as anyone else. Health benefits come with this, often well into their entire lives and there are many benefits to being the the military as well. Additionally, it is a job and you do not have to particiapte in it------just as anyone who chooses a profession.--------------Not saying I totally feel this way, but I do not understand how this logic can be good for the public sector and even govt jobs, but be a totally different situation for military due to the risk invovled (which is known to those sign up)
buddy you have to realize, no matter how much you argue or give truth to people who fail to look past the bs, your not going to get anywhere.
Somehow, I don't really see putting your life on the line and getting shot at as quite the same as sitting behind a desk stamping papers.
It never ceases to surprise me how liberals can get all bent out of shape when a conservative proposes to cut Gov't spending on some social program or something where a public union is involved, but doesn't have any problems with military budget cuts, simply saying "They should've known when they signed up".
Cuts to public union interests get all the protestors fired up, but the military gets the sh!t end of the stick when it comes to progressive sympathies. Go figure.
I know this will go right through you but I feel that workers, people are more important that a big military machine. I don't see any liberals trying to defund the pentagon, but they do not need the countless billions and even trillions of dollars, I mean a lot of it goes to defense contracts. And soldiers get paid *** to boot. While these damn corporations and mercs get paid ten fold. And also most liberals are very conservative about wars as we don't like seeing our troops die and our economy suffer. While the gop seems to feel the opposite. As they are always going for the industry side of things while leaving the human factor out of the loop. Demonize the left all you want but the votes, and the facts are not on your side. Give me one bill, or measure that the gop has pushed that has actually helped the middle class, middle income families, the poor, or the elderly? ..... yup, none.
Ok, just off the top of ky head, the Bush era tax cuts which, despite what liberals love to believe, cut taxes for EVERYONE! You can't say it was a tax cut for the rich because it was an across the board tax cut for every American from the bottom to the top.
I know that doesn't fit the bill as a government handout, but that is kind of the point. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn and not keeping them dependant on government handouts is the ONLY thing that can truly help people. Now name one thing the Dems have done to help poor and middle class that is NOT a handout and does not redistribute wealth in any way? The Bush tax cuts did that... What do the Dems have?
Let's see the tax cuts did much more for the super wealthy than the middle class. Also much of their tax cuts did little to effect them. Also cutting taxes which were already low only hurts the income the govt gets to fund programs. Now not only did the gop cut taxes, they ran up huge debt on war which was not paid for, oh by the way the tax cuts weren't paid for, they passed the huge give away to the insurance and drug companies called medicare part D, they gave away millions if not billions of dollars of money to big oil, gas and other industries, not to mention creating the homeland security division among other agencies. .. To name a few..
The Dems have:
passed medicare, Social security, medicaid, unemployment, workman's comp, child insurance program (schip), WPA and CCC for infrastructure through this country, woman's rights, Civil rights laws... I could go on...
...And what is the GOP pushing now, well let's see
Taking more rights from Woman
trying to tell people they can't get married
taking away control from the FDA
Taking control from the EPA
Allowing gas companies and oil companies to buy up more public land (which will effect more people)
Attacking child labor laws
Trying to break up medicare
Pushing to stop any reform of the medical insurance in this country
...
To name a few.
^ Without an understanding of macro economics, there's nothing I can say that you'd understand. Handouts and giveaways don't do anything other than make people dependent on wealth transfers; subsidies and wealth transfers to social programs do nothing more than create new special interests which will oppose any kind of cuts to their interests, which you seem perfectly content with.
No point in talking to you as you see anyone who disagrees with wealth redistribution as evil incarnate, and see all Repubs as money-grubbing fiends hell-bent on enslaving the middle class. You're a socialist - no point in discussing capitalist principles with you.
I'm sorry but from what I have read from your posts you know nothing about micro and macro economics. Taking from the poorer of people only to give that to the super wealthy doesn't do an economy any good. Especially when we have a consumer driven economy.
Just because you watch lou dobbs on Fox Business doesn't make you an expert. I have had many courses on economics.
Ah, nothing like a personal attack to prove your point, eh? So I must watch lou dobbs and Fox to figure out that wealth transfers don't work? That someone making $18k/yr isn't in any position to create a job no matter how much taxpayer money you throw at them? Whatever.
^ Without an understanding of macro economics, there's nothing I can say that you'd understand. Handouts and giveaways don't do anything other than make people dependent on wealth transfers; subsidies and wealth transfers to social programs do nothing more than create new special interests which will oppose any kind of cuts to their interests, which you seem perfectly content with.
No point in talking to you as you see anyone who disagrees with wealth redistribution as evil incarnate, and see all Repubs as money-grubbing fiends hell-bent on enslaving the middle class. You're a socialist - no point in discussing capitalist principles with you.
I'm sorry but from what I have read from your posts you know nothing about micro and macro economics. Taking from the poorer of people only to give that to the super wealthy doesn't do an economy any good. Especially when we have a consumer driven economy.
Just because you watch lou dobbs on Fox Business doesn't make you an expert. I have had many courses on economics.
Ah, nothing like a personal attack to prove your point, eh? So I must watch lou dobbs and Fox to figure out that wealth transfers don't work? That someone making $18k/yr isn't in any position to create a job no matter how much taxpayer money you throw at them? Whatever.
yup, oh and if there is any wealth distribution going on it's on the corporate side. But somehow medicare and SS is a distribution of wealth... whatever yourself.
Warmack----Again, I have not said to defund the military---I have said cuts need to be made. Nor did I suggest soldiers pay should be changed, but there are other cuts than can be made without hurting solider---this I believe. Was not being personal-----and I know that I will get attacked for this, and PLEASE DO NOT think it is meant directly at you, but as a hypothetical question I have never understood..here it is
If people have a job and their duties to perform are outlined and they are paid based on supply and demand, how skilled the labor is, ect. Why do we get so bent out of shape about military? They are paid a wage to do a job, just as anyone else. Health benefits come with this, often well into their entire lives and there are many benefits to being the the military as well. Additionally, it is a job and you do not have to particiapte in it------just as anyone who chooses a profession.--------------Not saying I totally feel this way, but I do not understand how this logic can be good for the public sector and even govt jobs, but be a totally different situation for military due to the risk invovled (which is known to those sign up)
I won't attack you, you are much more well versed in all this political stuff than I am. Just like if you showed up to a training compound I would make you cry like a baby! I do take it personally though, just like if someone told you that all [insert your political party her] were mildly retarded. I apologize for misspeaking in my earlier post. I saw defund and went nuts. Cuts affect us more than you would ever imagine. But I will attempt to clear the clutter from your mind in the issue you asked about.
First off when I signed up the cold war was over. The gulf war was over. There were no threats looming on the horizon. I have never said that I have any issues with the risk. I do not argue with paying for the skill of the labor done. So how much do you think it is going to jack up the military spending when they start paying me as an air traffic controller for Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles with ten years experience in the field with no screw ups, who holds a part time job as a cop, is an instructor for anything the army has a lesson plan on (all army instructor), and a nationally ranked recruiter? In the military I have to be able to do all of these things and still make time for my family and education. You know why I volunteered to go on this deployment and miss the birth of my twins, only to be rushed home right afterwards because they were 2.5 months premature? Because I knew it was the only way I'd have time to do college classes. I knew that If I busted my @$$ I could better myself a little bit more, and make myself more marketable on the outside. Why outside the military? Because they are changing the way they do business on tons of levels. They are catering to the whiny, crying, entitlement generation. I am tired of having to be careful what I say to someone in a job where what I say is going to keep someone from dying. I also refuse to have a homosexual roomate. Sorry, its just not gonna happen. It doesn't line up with my believes, and I am not going to spend a 12+ month tour away from my wife living with another dude who is staring at me. Sorry for the rant, but that might help clear up my opinions on the pay and the attitude to the military not needing money for skilled labor, fine dont pay the 11B (Infantryman) man anymore than he gets now. He is only one of the many people in the military who is willing to put his life on the line to defend your right to say he deserves less pay than what he gets. If you screw up at you job, what happens? 'Cause when I screw up at mine, you end up speaking another language, or getting planted in the ground. AND YOU CANT CUT MILITARY SPENDING WITHOUT EFFECTING THE SOLDIERS! I had to spend $450 on gear to come over here because of the last spending cuts. We didn't have all the gear we needed so I had to buy my own. Just so you understand this point, it would be like you not having a supply closet full of paper and staples and ink cartridges and such at work. H3LL, I had to buy a printer so I could type up required paperwork!
Macro-----you commented on my post earlier ad used rhetoric such as military is not like a desk job----which I am VERY WELL aware of and do not need reminding. But you did not comment at all on my question about it being a job, correct? You instead made it an emotional argument and bringing a blanket statement about liberals and social programs up instead. You are free to do this, but if your going to respond to what I post, could you at least try to actually respond to what I post and not just bring up apples when Im talking oranges?
Warmack----I thank you and all solidiers for what you do. Its something I would not want to, or have the physical ability or mental constitution. I am not thankless for what you or anyone else does in the military, and not more well versed at all----just more time to ***. Also, if I screw up at my job...people die. I have a rather involved job with vulnerable elderly adults, so I do understand responsibility and risk to others. On a lesser note, they havent been able to supply us with pens, staples, tape, paper clips, ect. for 2 years now. I simply made the statement what hear here and other places all the time, but put it in a context people do not find favorable.....IE, Workers who are unionized are overpaid for the jobs they do, people are free to work where they want and if they do not like the wage they can take another job, no one should be upset about the monies CEOs or others earn---you should just work harder to achieve that status.
Well, by that same logic, military pay is based on skill---availability of people to sign up, ect. The line of work is more hazardous and does protect safety....but this is known when signing and and why not forced upon anyone to join. It follows the same rule of payment for work done as other jobs. AGAIN, not saying it is right, but just saying it is a job and not being forced....just like a restaurant employee, walmart worker, or bank president. And before this becomes a political issue, the right doesnt care and more about soldiers standard of livng than the left.
If people have a job and their duties to perform are outlined and they are paid based on supply and demand, how skilled the labor is, ect. Why do we get so bent out of shape about military? They are paid a wage to do a job, just as anyone else. Health benefits come with this, often well into their entire lives and there are many benefits to being the the military as well. Additionally, it is a job and you do not have to particiapte in it------just as anyone who chooses a profession.--------------Not saying I totally feel this way, but I do not understand how this logic can be good for the public sector and even govt jobs, but be a totally different situation for military due to the risk invovled (which is known to those sign up)
One job doesn't equal another - a CEO is paid more because they manage the entire company, while a secretary organizes papers. The military risks their life while a bureaucrat in the Dept. of Education pushes a pencil; one's getting shot at while the other just needs to worry about paper cuts. While you're right they knew what they were in for when they signed up, it doesn't mean it's right or shouldn't be changed
My point is that if anything, the military is underpaid - putting your life on the line should pay more than it currently does. But when you watch the news and a progressive makes a speech about cutting funding, the military is easy to demagogue with lines like "we need to cut the military-industrial-complex and stop funding a murder machine" - what's unsaid is that by cutting funding, you're cutting funding to American troops who are putting their lives on the line, yet that same politician would never say "let's cut the Dept. of Education or the EPA".
It's easy to say "let's cut the military budget", but not so easy to decide what to cut. Do you cut troop pay? Body armor? Funding for vehicles? Research projects? It's like saying "the debt is too high - we should cut it" - but when you get down to it, not many politicians are willing to go after the big budget items like SS, medicare/aid. In the same vein, it's easy to say "the military budget is $600 bill - we needs to cut it", but it's much more difficult to decide what to cut. Left unsaid is that the military budget always falls after a war ends - it'll come down on it's own when we withdraw.
It wasn't too many years ago that Rumsfeld caught a lot of flak for the comment "You don't go to war with the army you want; you go to war with the army you have", and that the media was shouting from the rooftops that the troops didn't have body armor, that they were using whatever they could to fortify the sides of the humvees.
It's easy to say "lets cut the military's budget" as a political point, but where does that money come from?
You dont ever have to worry about me picking sides (right or left) my feet are firmly planted in the opinion that there is not a single politician knows everything, all of them are wrong most of the time, and everyone wants to point fingers at who did it rather than pick up the spilled milk.
I do not believe that you are ungrateful for the military at all, and I didnt mean to sound like I did. I was also not making light of anyones job. Everyones job has a purpose. Sometimes support, sometimes to act. In essence, I couldn't do my job if you didn't do yours. I would have to stay at home and care for my parents.
As for the supplies, I have to 'hot seat' a weapon (three guys use the same weapon). I am not too concerned as the last attack anywhere near where I am was six plus years ago, however this is the type thing that comes with cutting military spending. I was told that all my expenses would be paid for in the military, and most of them are, but when I had to buy my own IOTV (Improved Outer Tactical Vest (Flak Jacket)) and Kevlar helmet before this deployment, I was pissed! It is tantamount to being a bus driver and they tell you you have to buy the bus and pay for gas.
People often say that the military is the largest union on the planet. I disagree with that because we dont run anything like a union. What kills me is yes I can leave the Army and find another job paying me three times as much, but will I get the same satisfaction from it? No, I've been that route and it didnt work. I was the director of sales and marketing for a design firm in Vegas and made more than I knew what to do with. I hated my job! I got no satisfaction from telling someone what they needed. I'm one of the ones that got stuck.
Because I love my job, I did it for ten years. I make enough money to support my family and we live well, but I am half way to retirement. Do I give up the last ten years of my life to find a less satisfying job? No. I am not saying that I think the military underpays the new guys. A high school grad (or equivalent) with no training that has no initiative makes 15K a year. Not bad for someone with no motivation. I am just saying that the job market should be level in the government. I know some people are over paid, I agree. I am saying that I shouldn't get paid a third what someone in the private sector does for the same job, especially when I have to do all the extra duties of a (insert Special Skill Identifier here). I worked 80hrs a week as a recruiter, over double what every other soldier works (when in garrison). Know what I got for it? $450 a month extra! Thats awesome... until you have to pay for all the marketing campaigns, and newspaper ads, and meals on the road, and gas because your G-ride (government issued car) is being used for something else, and office supplies. It cost me out of my paycheck approximately $300 a month on top of the $450 they added onto my paycheck. I'm just saying if you want the best defense for your rights, you have to make allowances for it.
... that the troops didn't have body armor, that they were using whatever they could to fortify the sides of the humvees.
It's easy to say "lets cut the military's budget" as a political point, but where does that money come from?
I can attest to this, as I was there. There is nothing more scary than riding down the road and hearing bullets ping off the side of your softshell HMMWV that you have welded steel plates to because you dont have up armored HMMWV's. The only reason we had air conditioning is because operation AC MAILED us 6 AC units. Shame they were all 110V and we were running off of city power (220V), because the generators were broke and we couldn't get the parts due to funding. We ran them in series because it worked till a power surge took them out. Then back to no AC.
Teachers, once they're tenured, have guaranteed employment for life and are almost impossible to fire if they stink; in NY it takes $400,000 of legal expenses to fire one teacher for molesting kids - no joke. Education reform isn't about paying teachers less - it's about switching from tenure to merit-pay, where the teachers who are good get paid more than they do today, and the bad teachers can be fired easier - that's it, really. It's not about hurting teachers, but about getting rid of the fossils and getting some type of pay-for-performance system in place to replace the current pay-for-seniority system. The current system of teacher hiring is FIFO - first in, first out, meaning that when cuts need to be made, the newest teachers are the first to be let go - this has resulted in a few Teachers of the Year being fired, because the school district can't fire the teacher that's been in the system for 40 years. Education reform is about bringing some business common-sense like merit-retention, to the public school system.
As for NPR, while it's only a few million, why should the Gov't be funding this or ANY news outlet? If NPR is so valuable, why can't they do like that fired funding director said in that sting video, and support themselves with private donations? The Gov't shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing favored news outlets - let them support themselves in the free market.
If a news outlet is sucking the Gov't teet, that doesn't make them independent - it makes them beholden to Gov't subsidies, and willing to slant coverage for any politician who promises them more money, which is always a Lefty. How can a libertarian support Gov't subsidies for politically favored news outlets, but look down on news outlets that support themselves in a free market, calling them "Big Money"? Sometimes I just don't get you.
As for your comments about medicare/aid, I'll get into them some other time; way too large of an argument to go into now.
Well, we agree on several things. The education system does need re-vamping, mostly from the top down. I'm at odds with myself over NPR, I must admit. Theoretically, I like the idea of privatizing it, in practice it's the closest thing to fair and balanced, though. On the big social programs, do we really disagree? I'm for increasing personal responsibility, making those who can but won't work live on what they earn. And realizing that sometimes people need help with problems too big for a working family to take care of.
Comments
Let's see the tax cuts did much more for the super wealthy than the middle class. Also much of their tax cuts did little to effect them. Also cutting taxes which were already low only hurts the income the govt gets to fund programs. Now not only did the gop cut taxes, they ran up huge debt on war which was not paid for, oh by the way the tax cuts weren't paid for, they passed the huge give away to the insurance and drug companies called medicare part D, they gave away millions if not billions of dollars of money to big oil, gas and other industries, not to mention creating the homeland security division among other agencies. .. To name a few..
The Dems have: passed medicare, Social security, medicaid, unemployment, workman's comp, child insurance program (schip), WPA and CCC for infrastructure through this country, woman's rights, Civil rights laws... I could go on...
Taking more rights from Woman
trying to tell people they can't get married
taking away control from the FDA
Taking control from the EPA
Allowing gas companies and oil companies to buy up more public land (which will effect more people)
Attacking child labor laws
Trying to break up medicare
Pushing to stop any reform of the medical insurance in this country
...
To name a few.
I won't attack you, you are much more well versed in all this political stuff than I am. Just like if you showed up to a training compound I would make you cry like a baby! I do take it personally though, just like if someone told you that all [insert your political party her] were mildly retarded. I apologize for misspeaking in my earlier post. I saw defund and went nuts. Cuts affect us more than you would ever imagine. But I will attempt to clear the clutter from your mind in the issue you asked about.
First off when I signed up the cold war was over. The gulf war was over. There were no threats looming on the horizon. I have never said that I have any issues with the risk. I do not argue with paying for the skill of the labor done. So how much do you think it is going to jack up the military spending when they start paying me as an air traffic controller for Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles with ten years experience in the field with no screw ups, who holds a part time job as a cop, is an instructor for anything the army has a lesson plan on (all army instructor), and a nationally ranked recruiter? In the military I have to be able to do all of these things and still make time for my family and education. You know why I volunteered to go on this deployment and miss the birth of my twins, only to be rushed home right afterwards because they were 2.5 months premature? Because I knew it was the only way I'd have time to do college classes. I knew that If I busted my @$$ I could better myself a little bit more, and make myself more marketable on the outside. Why outside the military? Because they are changing the way they do business on tons of levels. They are catering to the whiny, crying, entitlement generation. I am tired of having to be careful what I say to someone in a job where what I say is going to keep someone from dying. I also refuse to have a homosexual roomate. Sorry, its just not gonna happen. It doesn't line up with my believes, and I am not going to spend a 12+ month tour away from my wife living with another dude who is staring at me. Sorry for the rant, but that might help clear up my opinions on the pay and the attitude to the military not needing money for skilled labor, fine dont pay the 11B (Infantryman) man anymore than he gets now. He is only one of the many people in the military who is willing to put his life on the line to defend your right to say he deserves less pay than what he gets. If you screw up at you job, what happens? 'Cause when I screw up at mine, you end up speaking another language, or getting planted in the ground. AND YOU CANT CUT MILITARY SPENDING WITHOUT EFFECTING THE SOLDIERS! I had to spend $450 on gear to come over here because of the last spending cuts. We didn't have all the gear we needed so I had to buy my own. Just so you understand this point, it would be like you not having a supply closet full of paper and staples and ink cartridges and such at work. H3LL, I had to buy a printer so I could type up required paperwork!
Well, by that same logic, military pay is based on skill---availability of people to sign up, ect. The line of work is more hazardous and does protect safety....but this is known when signing and and why not forced upon anyone to join. It follows the same rule of payment for work done as other jobs. AGAIN, not saying it is right, but just saying it is a job and not being forced....just like a restaurant employee, walmart worker, or bank president. And before this becomes a political issue, the right doesnt care and more about soldiers standard of livng than the left.
One job doesn't equal another - a CEO is paid more because they manage the entire company, while a secretary organizes papers. The military risks their life while a bureaucrat in the Dept. of Education pushes a pencil; one's getting shot at while the other just needs to worry about paper cuts. While you're right they knew what they were in for when they signed up, it doesn't mean it's right or shouldn't be changed
My point is that if anything, the military is underpaid - putting your life on the line should pay more than it currently does. But when you watch the news and a progressive makes a speech about cutting funding, the military is easy to demagogue with lines like "we need to cut the military-industrial-complex and stop funding a murder machine" - what's unsaid is that by cutting funding, you're cutting funding to American troops who are putting their lives on the line, yet that same politician would never say "let's cut the Dept. of Education or the EPA".
It's easy to say "let's cut the military budget", but not so easy to decide what to cut. Do you cut troop pay? Body armor? Funding for vehicles? Research projects? It's like saying "the debt is too high - we should cut it" - but when you get down to it, not many politicians are willing to go after the big budget items like SS, medicare/aid. In the same vein, it's easy to say "the military budget is $600 bill - we needs to cut it", but it's much more difficult to decide what to cut. Left unsaid is that the military budget always falls after a war ends - it'll come down on it's own when we withdraw.
It wasn't too many years ago that Rumsfeld caught a lot of flak for the comment "You don't go to war with the army you want; you go to war with the army you have", and that the media was shouting from the rooftops that the troops didn't have body armor, that they were using whatever they could to fortify the sides of the humvees.
It's easy to say "lets cut the military's budget" as a political point, but where does that money come from?
I do not believe that you are ungrateful for the military at all, and I didnt mean to sound like I did. I was also not making light of anyones job. Everyones job has a purpose. Sometimes support, sometimes to act. In essence, I couldn't do my job if you didn't do yours. I would have to stay at home and care for my parents.
As for the supplies, I have to 'hot seat' a weapon (three guys use the same weapon). I am not too concerned as the last attack anywhere near where I am was six plus years ago, however this is the type thing that comes with cutting military spending. I was told that all my expenses would be paid for in the military, and most of them are, but when I had to buy my own IOTV (Improved Outer Tactical Vest (Flak Jacket)) and Kevlar helmet before this deployment, I was pissed! It is tantamount to being a bus driver and they tell you you have to buy the bus and pay for gas.
People often say that the military is the largest union on the planet. I disagree with that because we dont run anything like a union. What kills me is yes I can leave the Army and find another job paying me three times as much, but will I get the same satisfaction from it? No, I've been that route and it didnt work. I was the director of sales and marketing for a design firm in Vegas and made more than I knew what to do with. I hated my job! I got no satisfaction from telling someone what they needed. I'm one of the ones that got stuck.
Because I love my job, I did it for ten years. I make enough money to support my family and we live well, but I am half way to retirement. Do I give up the last ten years of my life to find a less satisfying job? No. I am not saying that I think the military underpays the new guys. A high school grad (or equivalent) with no training that has no initiative makes 15K a year. Not bad for someone with no motivation. I am just saying that the job market should be level in the government. I know some people are over paid, I agree. I am saying that I shouldn't get paid a third what someone in the private sector does for the same job, especially when I have to do all the extra duties of a (insert Special Skill Identifier here). I worked 80hrs a week as a recruiter, over double what every other soldier works (when in garrison). Know what I got for it? $450 a month extra! Thats awesome... until you have to pay for all the marketing campaigns, and newspaper ads, and meals on the road, and gas because your G-ride (government issued car) is being used for something else, and office supplies. It cost me out of my paycheck approximately $300 a month on top of the $450 they added onto my paycheck. I'm just saying if you want the best defense for your rights, you have to make allowances for it.
I can attest to this, as I was there. There is nothing more scary than riding down the road and hearing bullets ping off the side of your softshell HMMWV that you have welded steel plates to because you dont have up armored HMMWV's. The only reason we had air conditioning is because operation AC MAILED us 6 AC units. Shame they were all 110V and we were running off of city power (220V), because the generators were broke and we couldn't get the parts due to funding. We ran them in series because it worked till a power surge took them out. Then back to no AC.