PDA

View Full Version : Horrible reporting and bad news for our Soldiers



eg8r
08-14-2003, 11:01 AM
This link (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL&type=printable) is an article that was linked off of the CNN.com website.

The article is about a pay increase that was given to the troops last April and ends in Sept. This means the pay increases were not definite and everyone knew of the duration of the raise. Now, the time is coming for this raise to end. Once again, everyone knew in advance that the raise was for only so long.

In comes some liberal reporter who given the proper information still decides to state a lie. Here is the lie... [ QUOTE ]
The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, <hr /></blockquote> and here is the reason that is a lie... [ QUOTE ]
Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002, but they are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30 unless Congress votes to keep them as part of its annual defense appropriations legislation. <hr /></blockquote> What part of the increase did this reporter not understand??? Oh he understands all of it, and he also understands that there are a good majority of people who will read this and believe the lie...The pentagon is not requesting any CUT. The increase is set to EXPIRE. There is a big difference.

Personally, I hope they decide to extend the increase for the entire time the soldier is in that predicament. I do think that if they decide to not extend the increase then they are letting the troops down, only because there is still a hazard working there. Those guys are still getting shot at and they are still risking their lives.

eg8r

kingarthur
08-14-2003, 12:38 PM
You American cowards should fight for honor and not money.

Cueless Joey
08-14-2003, 12:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote kingarthur:</font><hr> You American cowards should fight for honor and not money. <hr /></blockquote>
OK Francis.

kingarthur
08-14-2003, 12:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
OK Francis. <hr /></blockquote>

Sweet Jesus! HA! Have you ever considered stand-up comedy as a profession? HA! HA!

Best of luck to you,
Arthur
King of Camelot

Qtec
08-15-2003, 04:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
On Capitol Hill, members say the issue will be taken up quickly after the summer recess when a conference committee meets to negotiate conflicting versions of the $369 billion defense appropriations bill <hr /></blockquote>

I thought that after the fall of the USSR there would be a reduction in defense spending.

To date , nobody has claimed resposibility for 9/11. Normally , terrorist orginisations are only to quick to do so .

The US , with all its powers , still cannot find Bin Laden , cannot find Saddam and you still dont know who killed President Kennedy. [ which IMO was the event when the world began to lose faith in American justice ]


Q

eg8r
08-15-2003, 06:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The US , with all its powers , still cannot find Bin Laden , cannot find Saddam and you still dont know who killed President Kennedy. [ which IMO was the event when the world began to lose faith in American justice ]
<hr /></blockquote> What does this have to do with the subject matter????

eg8r

Qtec
08-15-2003, 06:44 AM
What bit of the article dont you understand?

[ QUOTE ]
Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress an interim budget report saying the extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories was costing about $25 million more a month, or $300 million for a full year. In its "appeals package" laying out its requests for cuts in pending congressional spending legislation, Pentagon officials recommended returning to the old, lower rates of special pay and said military experts would study the question of combat pay in coming months.


WHITE HOUSE DUCKS ISSUE
A White House spokesman referred questions about the administration's view on the pay cut to the Pentagon report.

<hr /></blockquote>

If you earn less this week than you did last week , you have had a pay cut. Even if the pay rise was temporary, whatever way you look at it , the soldier in Iraq will see it as a pay cut.

If you know that the temp increase is about to come to an end , you either agree with that or you dont. The Whitehouse agree's with the Pentagon , who are for the abolition of the extra money for soldiers in combat in dangerous countries.

Why was the increase only for a year? Did they think that it would be all over?

Q

eg8r
08-15-2003, 08:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you earn less this week than you did last week , you have had a pay cut. Even if the pay rise was temporary, whatever way you look at it , the soldier in Iraq will see it as a pay cut. <hr /></blockquote> Wrong. Go back and read the article. Whether the Pentagon is requesting or not, the raise had a specified duration. This is not something the Pentagon chose. The Pentagon is simply stating that when the time frame for the raise is met, then do not renew.

A request not to renew is not the same as cutting the temporary increase. They are just requesting to allow the time to run out as previously agreed. A cut in a temporary raise would happen before the time frame was finished.

I did state that I wish it was renewd during this predicament however I did not cloak the truth like the newspaper was doing.

eg8r

MikeM
08-15-2003, 10:00 AM
I, for one, totally agree with the slant of the quoted article. It truly is a pay cut. Whether the first one was temporary or not, the fact remains that the troops will be earning less come October 1.

The media is the only effective way to push for military pay reform. I am a member of the Association of the US Army (AUSA). It is a pseudo-lobby that interacts with Washington on behalf of the soldiers in the Army. I get their monthly newspaper. Now, no one would ever call their writers liberal and they very firmly refer to this as a pay cut.

The bottom line is that the money to pay for miltary pay raises has to come from somewhere. Either tax increases or reallocation of current tax dollars. There is no lobby for the soldiers (it's not legal). There are lots of lobbies for other special interests pushing their economic agendas. This administration (and others before them) pay more attention to the special interest lobbies than to our warfighters. Any increases in defense spending tend to go toward procurement programs that ultimately benefit defense contractors who in turn contribute more money to political campaigns, etc. etc., etc..

You're absolutely right that this is bad news for our troops. We expect them to fight and die for us and many of them are forced to live under the poverty line because we won't pay them enough money.

MM

Qtec
08-15-2003, 10:28 AM
If the TRUTH was a frieght train heading towards you , you still wouldnt see it .


I am tired of hearing this BS about the definition of what is a lie and what isnt. There are many definitions provided in dictionary's. This one from Webster,s English.


[ QUOTE ]
1b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker 2: something that
misleads or deceives 3: a charge of lying

<hr /></blockquote>


Does this apply to GW or do you , like the Whitehouse use the 'Fantasy Republican Handbook for Tricky Situations'.


Q

eg8r
08-15-2003, 10:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If the TRUTH was a frieght train heading towards you , you still wouldnt see it . <hr /></blockquote> Ha, how would you know the truth of American policy and Law, you did not even know what 1p was a few months ago, and pool is your thing.


Here is another definition (one that makes a little more sense)... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote American Heritage:</font><hr> A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

Qtec
08-15-2003, 10:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote American Heritage:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. <hr /></blockquote>

This does not help your case . This exactly what happened.

Q

Qtec
08-15-2003, 11:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
you did not even know what 1p was a few months ago, and pool is your thing.
<hr /></blockquote>

Ouch! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif HaHaHa.

When did I ever say pool was my thing ? Snooker is MY thing .

I just happen to be able to play a good game , thats all . Without a JC /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

eg8r
08-15-2003, 11:46 AM
No JC for me either, LOL. I have it but almost never use it.

eg8r

eg8r
08-15-2003, 11:48 AM
What are you talking about...What lies are you talking about???

eg8r &lt;~~~Wondering when this workday will end and the weekend begins

eg8r
08-18-2003, 09:37 AM
Here is a clip from the Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/) (this is where I got the info to go to the CNN site to get the original info).

This section was taken from the above link... [ QUOTE ]
Not So Foolish
We heard from numerous servicemen, ex-servicemen and relatives of servicemen who took issue with the articles we cited in our item yesterday on pay and benefits for the troops on duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Capt. Jamie Flanders of the Air Force writes:

Neither the Pentagon nor Congress has any plans of removing the family-separation allowance or the hostile fire/imminent danger pay from all of our deployed troops.

I am currently deployed to Uzbekistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. As a captain (O-3) and a deployed member, I am entitled to the following benefits in addition to my regular pay:

$3.50 per diem (to cover miscellaneous expenses, soap, snacks, etc). $3.50 per day for one 30-day month comes to $105. This is the least amount given to every deployed military member and may be increased based on the cost of living in the deployed area.


Hostile fire/imminent danger pay. Currently set at $150 a month for members deployed in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Pentagon is reviewing whether or not those areas that are no longer considered dangerous deserve this specific pay. This will not affect those members deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.


Family separation allowance. Currently set at $250 per month. This pay is given to any military member who is away from his family for at least 30 days. Congress increased the amount to $250 from $150 a month after Sept. 2001 and reviews it each fiscal year to determine whether to should drop it back to $150.


Tax-free status. Given to every military member deployed to a combat/imminent danger zone. And this amount is not prorated. If I deploy on June 30, my pay for the entire month of June is tax free. If I go home on July 1, all of July is tax-free as well. This is given to the military member by not withholding FICA from his monthly paycheck--and that month is not considered part of total taxable income on the W-2. As a captain with 10 years of total military service, my monthly pay increased approximately by $600.

So for my deployment to Uzbekistan, I receive additional benefits totaling $1,105 a month. In the worst-case scenario, the Pentagon is considering for my area to remove hostile fire pay and reduce family separation back to $150. Based on that, my total benefits would drop to $855.

<hr /></blockquote> I hope they get to keep the extra $150 but time will tell. As far as still keeping the $855, that is a pretty nice "temporary" increase per month.

eg8r

Qtec
08-18-2003, 09:58 AM
That fine for the Captain , how about the ordinary grunt in the firing line ?


Q