$447 bil

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by goof2

I think 101 was saying we can't increase military pay significantly (the mythical hundred grand) as many people would like because with the number of people in the military it would just be too expensive.

We could if we quit blowing money on other crap. Such as paying some sorry ass $15k a year for 2-3years for unemployment (make them join the Army for 2 years). Or blowing money on shitty art that no one in the private sector cares about. And instead of throwing more money at education system, we can actually fix it with the excess they have now. Not to mention the foreign aide we give out.

Another benefit is if we paid our soldiers better we could get away with less soldiers who are better soldiers, instead of taking anybody with a pulse.

[EpyonXero]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

We could if we quit blowing money on other crap. Such as paying some sorry ass $15k a year for 2-3years for unemployment (make them join the Army for 2 years). Or blowing money on shitty art that no one in the private sector cares about. And instead of throwing more money at education system, we can actually fix it with the excess they have now. Not to mention the foreign aide we give out.

Another benefit is if we paid our soldiers better we could get away with less soldiers who are better soldiers, instead of taking anybody with a pulse.

"shitty art"

[Homeslice]

If there is such a drastic need to increase pay in the military, why do more than enough people volunteer? I would like to see the stats to know for sure, but I'm going to bet only 20-30-40% of the people who try to get in do.

And as for "if you raise the pay, you'd get better quality people", OK maybe....... but how come you don't think that would be true for teachers as well?

Oh but wait, then it would be "But most teachers/soldiers/etc. are in it for the altruism..........(cough BULLSHIT)".

Sounds like all of us are going round and round in circles

[the chi]

Originally Posted by Captain Morgan

Thanks, particle. I agree. Also, I'd like to point out that of the 1.43 million people the military employs, a very small percentage of them make 100grand. The vast majority who stay past 4 years are in the middle ranks of enlisted, earning more like 35-45k, if that. A lot of the military are enlisted in their first 4 years, so they're earning more like 20k.

This. Where 101 gets the impression that military members make decent money is beyond me...yeah, officers get paid decent, but the majority are enlisted and they dont. They do get nice perks like the free medical (if you can ever get in) and free housing (again if you can get in) and they pay for living costs to help cover some rent expenses when they move you every few years, but even WITH basic allowances for housing and regular pay, you're looking at under 40K for a staff sgt in the AF that has 5-6 years in...no where near this mythical 100K for pay he speaks of and these are the men and women who put their lives on the line daily, whether they agree with the wars or not. I'm thinking thats not much when you are risking losing your life on a regular basis, and potentially leaving your family without a breadwinner. NOt to mention, you have to die juuuuust right to get those military benefits after death for your family, and oh, lets add in that if the military member passes, no matter what age while they are recieving their retirement pay, it ends. The spouse gets none of the benefits of all those years of living without the military member while they are deployed, or moving your entire adult life. Nothing. Nada. Hope you put some in savings/a good lif insurance plan if your military retiree dies from a heart attack a week after retirement cuz the non military member is screwed.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by the chi

This. Where 101 gets the impression that military members make decent money is beyond me...yeah, officers get paid decent, but the majority are enlisted and they dont. They do get nice perks like the free medical (if you can ever get in) and free housing (again if you can get in) and they pay for living costs to help cover some rent expenses when they move you every few years, but even WITH basic allowances for housing and regular pay, you're looking at under 40K for a staff sgt in the AF that has 5-6 years in...no where near this mythical 100K for pay he speaks of and these are the men and women who put their lives on the line daily, whether they agree with the wars or not. I'm thinking thats not much when you are risking losing your life on a regular basis, and potentially leaving your family without a breadwinner. NOt to mention, you have to die juuuuust right to get those military benefits after death for your family, and oh, lets add in that if the military member passes, no matter what age whike they are recieving their retirement pay, it ends. The spouse gets none of the benefits of all those years of living without the military member while they are deployed, or moving your entire adult life. Nothing. Nada. Hope you put some in savings if your military retiree dies from a heart attack a week after retirement.

You guys are misreading his post...

Originally Posted by goof2

I think 101 was saying we can't increase military pay significantly (the mythical hundred grand) as many people would like because with the number of people in the military it would just be too expensive.

[the chi]

Well, he quoted me and made the statement, and since I didnt say anywhere in my post that I think the military members should make more money and get raises, what else can we read from it?

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

The military employs 1.43 MILLON active service personnal and another 848,000 reservists and you wonder why your pay sucks? Does this country need 2 million people for defense when we have weapons to blow the world up 33 times over? Let me answer that for you...no. So....we HAVE to start unending wars in order to fund and keep all these people doing something, even if that something means doing nothing. You simply cannot pay 1.43 million people 100 grand a year plus good healthcare and good retirement ON TOP OF spending billions upon billions in weaponry.

----Beware grammar nazi's!! Extremely long sentence below----
Based on the (Ron Paul's and his followers) premise that the United States should not be involved in force projection, using military to manipulate foreign affairs and all that other Darth Vader shit
AND
based on our geopolitical reality
AND
based on the fact that no other country in the world, friend or foe has the ability to project force in a way that threatens our national integrity
there is no need to maintain our current military doctrine, structure and assets to support that doctrine.

In other words we dont need the 1.43 military personnel
We dont need close to a dozen aircraft carriers, 70+ subs
We dont need a long range bomber force
We dont need a lot of big ticket offensive systems

We can eliminate tons of programs and decrease the size of the total armed forces to a fraction of its current size.

We could drop total spending from 700 billion (actual spending is probably close to a 1 trillion once you factor in related costs) to 100 billion dollars if we were to adopt the stance proposed by Ron Paul and his supporters.

Based on our GDP (adjusted downward due to theoretical downsizing of military) we would be able to afford a small raise for the remaining military personnel.

However, based on our new "theoretical" isolationist posture and the fact that we have no external threats (and none in the foreseeable future) we would have to question why we are giving raises to people who would have nothing to do but fill out paper work and go out on training exercises.





Note: This is not what I'm proposing nor is it something I really feel strongly about. I'm just following the logic..and procrastinating on something I'm supposed to be doing.

[the chi]

Through all of this discussion I am reminded of this:

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said someone may steal from it at night, so they created a night watchman position (GS-4) and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning position and hired two people: one person to write the instructions (GS-12) and one person to do time studies (GS-11).

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Q.C. position and hired two people, one GS-9 to do the studies and one GS-11 to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a timekeeper (GS-09) and a payroll officer (GS-11) and hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?"

So they created an administrative position and hired three people: an Admin. Officer (GM-13), an Assistant Admin. Officer (GS-13) and a Legal Secretary (GS-08).

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost," so they laid off the night watchman.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

If there is such a drastic need to increase pay in the military, why do more than enough people volunteer? I would like to see the stats to know for sure, but I'm going to bet only 20-30-40% of the people who try to get in do.

And as for "if you raise the pay, you'd get better quality people", OK maybe....... but how come you don't think that would be true for teachers as well?

Oh but wait, then it would be "But most teachers/soldiers/etc. are in it for the altruism..........(cough BULLSHIT)".

Sounds like all of us are going round and round in circles

Agreed

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by the chi

Through all of this discussion I am reminded of this:

Thats great