Never mind. It’s up now.
OMG, soldiers have to fight wars? In other countries? Who knew?
"Imminent danger pay, given to Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force members in combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month. The family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other expenses while soldiers are away, was raised from $100 a month to $250."
Gee, an extra $225 per month for getting shot at, and and an extra $250 per month for rent, child care, etc? Wow, guys, how nice of you…
However, no-one in our armed forces went in expecting to make a lot of money. While I think that hazardous duty pay should be substantially higher than standard pay, I understand that the old song still holds true (“you’ll never get rich by digging a ditch”).
You know, the Bush admin goes on and on about supporting our troops…apparently, they didn’t mean it LITERALLY.
:mad:
I was reading this in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette earlier today. It made my blood boil.
Soldiers rations of water are being cut back, they don’t have adequate supplies. You know, I’m not big on a big fancy pork-barrel military, but for godsakes, these people risk their lives for us-don’t they DESERVE a little something?
Good god, this is fucked up.
This is Standard Operating Procedure for the military and has been for years. The military has a base pay that reflects pay raises according to time in grade,time in service etc… These are percs that go with a duty station. or TAD service. One more “journalist” rambling on without a clue.
Oh, Read_Neck, you can’t go letting those pesky facts interfere with another wonderful Bush-bashing session! :rolleyes:
Cool, looks like reinforcements have arrived! Thanks guys.
How quickly our Shrub apologists turn on the troops.
They are entitled to that pay. They have been lied to and exploited long enough. Now it’s time for Bush to take his dick out of their asses, pay them what he owes them, and bring them fucking home.
Ha! I was wondering when you’d show up with your usual tripe and bile, DtC.
I’m neither a Bush apologist nor a “non-troopsupporter,” but I am someone who can read a law without all the histrionics displayed in the linked article.
Can you support your statement that “they are entitled to that pay”? The law that was passed says “you get X from April to September, and after September you don’t get X anymore.” The administratiation has said that they will not extend the program. How does this mean that the government is taking away an entitlement?
Let’s play a game: see if you can respond without injecting your (irrelevant) feelings about Bush and the war into the discussion.
Tell me tax guy and the other Bushinistas… When was the last time you got shot at for your country?
I take it y’all are chickenhawks just like the Bush admin.
Tell me tax guy and the other Bushinistas… When was the last time you got shot at for your country?
I take it y’all are chickenhawks just like the Bush admin.
When was the last time you were able to think about ONE SINGLE ISSUE without your feelings on a multitude of other issues intruding on your thought (assuming there ever was such a time)?
So I’m operating at a slight loss here, but what exactly was the context of the April pay raise? I understand the concept of combat pay, and that the troops were going to get paid more while in Iraq (which is what Read_Neck was referring to). But I believe this is/was a further increase in combat pay that is being eliminated, right?
So was it a normal COLA increase that just happened to take place right as troops were on the ground in Iraq?
Or was it a political sop to the troops so that Dubya could proclaim that he’s pro-military (while sending 200 of them so far to their deaths in an unprovoked war)?
And if it was the latter, then TaxGuy, surely you cannot protest the criticism that the Administration is getting? After all, it’s pretty clear that even anti-Bushites here think the boys and girls over there deserve the extra $$ that Bush was giving them. Quibble all you want about the emotional impact of the phrase “pay cut”, and whether it’s appropriate in this case, but it’s pretty damn obvious (see the article cited by Squink at http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8262) that your boy George is playing politics with the welfare of our Armed Services families.
But you have to understand the hierarchy, DtC.
In the minds of the apologisti, apart from actually fighting, the main purpose of the troops is as a convenient rhetorical bludgeon to use against evil peaceniks, lefties, etc.: “Support the troops, you traitors.” While the soldiers serve that purpose, they are to be held up as the exemplar of American valor and service, deserving of every honor and all the generosity we can bestow on them.
Once this purpose is served, however, the troops revert to their default status as working-class grunts, and the apologisti see them as just another potential barrier in the way of King George II’s reascension in 2004.
A basic rule of thumb, if you don’t want to piss off Read Neck et al., is:
-
Before war: troops good
-
Early stages of war: troops good, heroes
-
Once war is won, or nearly won: troops largely irrelevant
-
After the war: troops just another social problem (drugs, homelessness, mental illness, etc.), viz. the attitude of many towards Vietnam vets, Gulf War I vets, etc.
Hope this clears things up. 
If it’s that they were told they get X for a certain amount of time then they get Y after that, I don’t see anything wrong with this not supporting the troops or looking bad on Bush. I certainly don’t think troops get the amount of money etc. they deserve, but the laborers, or the troops in the case, never get what they deserve. This is no different than the McDonald’s employees busting their ass for minimum wage and the CEO collecting. That’s life…unless you want communism?
Fuck! I give up on you people. Why can’t you debate an issue without calling me a Bush apologist (I didn’t even vote for the guy for chrissakes) and just generally being jackasses?
I’m not even supporting Bush’s position on this; I haven’t said one way or the other whether the policy of not renewing the increases in combat pay are or are not a good idea. I’m just saying that the failure to renew a benefit that’s scheduled to phase out is not a pay cut.
I know thinking is a lot harder then blindly spewing rhetoric, but give it a shot, you might like it, and it usually doesn’t hurt too much.
To elaborate on my analogy, I realize that there is death involved in the war in Iraq where there isn’t at McDonald’s, but the principal is still the same.
Great, now I fucked up the grammar (“are” should be “is” in that middle paragraph), which will give you something else to comment on besides commenting on the point I’ve made in this thread.
The sad truth is that none of these soldiers are “defending the homeland” in Iraq.
They are occupying a sovereign naiton and murdering its population in defense of “the homeland” 's economical and geostrategical interests.
Read: the mad of arrogance Bushy and Rumsfeld and -clan interests and their massmurdering lunatical dreams of world domination.
I wonder when the Bushy fans will finally wake up, but I don’t think it is about to come yet. It is so very cosy to be kept asleep while being fed Dreams of Glory and Domination.
So sad that the waking up most likely is to become very cold and cruel, like it already is the reality for those US’ers who weren’t put asleep by The Glorious Lunatic Imperialistic Arrogants rethorics.
I 'm very grateful that I’m not American.
By the way: Aren’t there any madhouses left overthere to put the Bushy and clan where they belong? = In very severely guarded and lifetime-locked places.
No psychiatrist can ever turn these people into normal human beings but they can serve as very intriguing study objects.
That way they can finally serve the community they are amazingly easy allowed to deceive and manipulate while even -aside of the other little benefits on the side - getting paid that much for it that I almost become a bit jealous.
Salaam. A.
This just in:
“**Pentagon to keep imminent danger pay, family separation allowance for troops in Iraq, Afghanistan **
Seeking to quell a growing public-relations firestorm, the Pentagon late Thursday vowed not to cut the pay of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan combat zones.”
So maybe this was all just a shit souffle cooked up by some fuzzy headed liberal “journalist”? Has the Army Times been wholly absorbed by NPR?
I think not.
President Rove is clearly asleep at the switch on this one. GeeDubya desperately needs to maintain his image as Commander in Chief and Troop Supporter No. 1. We’re getting ready to pour about a gazillion dollars into the Godforsaken Desert, with little assurance than anything will remain but a damp spot, and that briefly. Its ridiculous and insulting to do anything other than enhance thier pay. And worse than wrong, its stupid!
If GeeDubya can’t effectively stroke the Patriotic gland, if the people notice that the Emperor has no flight suit, he’s done. He’s road-kill.
So that makes this the most stunningly stupid political move since Truman put a whoopy cushion on Stalins chair at Yalta.