Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-25-2014, 10:48 AM
 
924 posts, read 667,257 times
Reputation: 312

Advertisements

Good.

Murder the murder industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2014, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Hard aground in the Sonoran Desert
4,866 posts, read 11,224,111 times
Reputation: 7128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf View Post
They're not new "toys".

You don't realize that acquisition programs are integral to readiness and just as important in order for the US to maintain their dominant presence.

What does keeping around a bunch of well paid troops do if they don't have the equipment to train on for the next war?
To operate the equipment we currently have? Have you seen all the equipment we're leaving behind in Iraq and Afghanistan that we will have to replace to create a new stockpile for the next war?

We're spending money on new toys that are not actually the best suited for the threats we face today. What good is it to have these new aircraft platforms if the threats we face don't even have a credible Air Force?

Is there any threat out there that our current military isn't decades ahead of already?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2014, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,483,709 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voxmusculus View Post
The irony is that Hagel has a reputation in the IR circles for being a hawk.
seems he certainly is a hawk for the f-35 at $199million each plane, its a half a trillion dollar nightmare
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2014, 11:11 AM
 
600 posts, read 659,997 times
Reputation: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBTRS View Post
Again, please reread my post...I am not "strongly ridiculing compensation", I was countering the people who are saying the military is overly compensated and their pay and benefits need to be cut. I'm not arguing for more pay or benefits, I'm arguing they not be cut as these service members agreed to serve based on that compensation. Offering them a certain level of compensation to get them to join and reducing it after they agree to join and are locked into a contract isn't the best way to make cuts in the DOD budget.

Neither my son or I joined solely because of the pay. We both wanted to serve our country and not rely on others to do the heavy lifting.

sorry, but you most certainly were strongly criticizing, some would dare say complaining...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2014, 11:22 AM
 
600 posts, read 659,997 times
Reputation: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf View Post
Spot on.

I always laugh to myself when I hear or see someone post on facebook about how an e-4 is underpaid (my cousin is an e-4).

I left active duty as a Junior Officer and joined the reserves. On active, I was making about 85 to 90k a year. I applied for a GS position that had over a 1000 applicants. I was hired based on the fact that I had the education requirements and work experience.

My first year out I was a GS-7 because you can't come in at a higher grade without specific experience. My take home pay after retirement (401k, and GS workers have to fund their pension), taxes, and medical for my entire family was less than a married e-4 gets in housing allowance per month where I live (San Diego).


Exactly...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2014, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,629,107 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby View Post
NOPE ..... Hagel is an Obama Team Member and has been since 2008 when Obama was first running for office. Republicans are not known for cutting Military readiness OR Veterans benefits.
He is Republican. I am not making it up. He is a Republican and a putative conservative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2014, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Hard aground in the Sonoran Desert
4,866 posts, read 11,224,111 times
Reputation: 7128
Quote:
Originally Posted by niedo View Post
sorry, but you most certainly were strongly criticizing, some would dare say complaining...
You didn't read the post or didn't understand it as that is not what I was doing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2014, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,228 posts, read 27,603,964 times
Reputation: 16066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf View Post
They're not new "toys".

You don't realize that acquisition programs are integral to readiness and just as important in order for the US to maintain their dominant presence.

What does keeping around a bunch of well paid troops do if they don't have the equipment to train on for the next war?
So this steep cuts in the military pay and benefits does not really benefit Economy or tax payers. I don't see the purpose of buying all these new toys either. Sorry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2014, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,738,058 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM View Post
So many other ways to make cut backs without hurting the troops (enlisted). Congress and Pentagon "stars and bars" won't cut things that are to their benefit. If an impartial audit was done on the supply side, they would find out why the military supplies cost a fortune compared to the same or similar supplies available for civilian purchase. I believe that some foreign bases should be closed and remain open long past their original purpose.
In 1991, the CEO Law created the expectation that the CFO's of all government agencies will issue an unqualified opinion of audited financial statements on a biannual basis. Over the past 23 years, DoD has not complied, regardless of who sat the oval or held the majority in Congress. Politics does not matter.

900 +/- bases in 130 countries, outside of war zones, is a tad over the top.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2014, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,754 posts, read 14,828,087 times
Reputation: 35584
Chuck Hagel....you mean our Secretary of Defense whose phone calls foreign dignitaries don't even bother returning? That Chuck Hagel?

What a joke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:04 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top