PDA

View Full Version : Obama's proposed 1.4 pct. military pay raise


SCSTILLER
02-02-2010, 06:29 AM
http://www.examiner.com/x-21818-Virginia-Beach-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m1d28-Obamas-proposed-14-percent-military-pay-raise-is-insulting

On Tuesday, the White House announced they would be asking for a 1.4 percent increase in pay for our military, which would take effect in 2011. If approved, it would represent the smallest pay raise to U.S. armed forces since the introduction of a volunteer military in 1973.

While the pay raise is part of a package that includes an increase in housing allowances, more money for day care, counseling, and youth programs for military families, these increases apply only to our troops with children.

However, the paltry pay raise applies to all of our service men and women.

Between Iraq and Afghanistan, we now have about 200,000 troops deployed, with many of those soldiers on their fourth and fifth tour of duty.

It could easily be said…Never have so few been asked to do so much for so little.

When this story ran on the online version of the Virginia-Pilot (Pilotonline.com), several people posted their opinion on the proposed raise. What follows are two of those comments:

Nascar 1966 said: “O'Bama would rather feed and help other countries than take care of the people who protect this great country of ours. I’m glad im retired I would never mention Commander in Chief as part of the enlistment oath as long as this jerk is President. Cant wait for 2012 to get here. He didnt get my vote in 08 and he sure isnt getting it in 12. Maybe the military voters and the rest of the voters will wake up in 12 and realize that this man is misleading and nothing more than a liar. Im sure retirees and Social Security people wont be getting anything in 11.”

NavRet said: “That will go over real well with our active duty military struggling to get by on existing pay scales. Meanwhile he continues to support, feed and medicate the rest of the world using the very same people he feels do not deserve higher compensation. Yea, that should go over real well.”

It should be noted that under current law, the U.S. Congress receives an automatic cost of living raise every year.

In 2009, Congressional salaries were increased by $4,700, representing an additional $2.5 million in debt being placed on the already incredibly over burdened taxpayers.

Under the increase, the average member of the House and Senate now makes $169,300 a year, while those in leadership positions make much more. Perhaps, the most vocal critic of executive salaries, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes an annual salary of $217,400. The minority leaders of both the House and Senate make $188,100.

While the rank of and file members of Congress enjoy a hefty yearly salary of $169,300, in addition to their many perks (subsidized meals in private dining rooms, an annual $10,000 car allowance, as well as a private police force at their service), a U.S. Army Private currently makes $16,794 a year (according to GoArmy.com).

As President, Barack Obama receives an annual salary of $400,000, along with an additional $169,000 in travel, entertainment, and discretionary expenses.

Yep, a slap in the face. I wonder how much Congress will get for a payraise. Well, at least we get a paid vacation to Afghanistan as part of the incentives. :banging:

I understand the need to cut the federal budget, if that is the reason for this, but really?

HometownGal
02-02-2010, 07:29 AM
Gee - isn't he just swell? :puke: :rolleyes: Great way to honor and show appreciation to our brave men and women who not only protect Washington's ass, but everyone's. :jerkit:

Those of us on SSD and the seniors on SS didn't get a COLA increase this year and we're not getting one next year either.

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-02-2010, 07:49 AM
This bothers me more than I can say. I think I can assume that everyone in the forum...regardless of party affiliation has a problem with the ANY administration reducing the pay increase of the the military.

Lets just be honest. The soldier in the field will have a cot/sleeping bag...and food in his belly. It might not be/and rarely is the best living enviroment...but it was what we signed up for. This snub directly affects the young wives/husbands and children of those soldiers. Its the families of the soldiers that will pay the price. When you think of what this means...dont picture the hardened soldier....picture the family trying to live on $17,000 a year.

Yeah....I'm pissed.

:banging:

stlrtruck
02-02-2010, 08:00 AM
And yet congress will sit back and vote themselves exponentially un-warranted pay raises?

Way to show you care!

MACH1
02-02-2010, 08:06 AM
And yet he'll get it back in triple in tax raises.

fansince'76
02-02-2010, 08:40 AM
More change we can believe in! :coffee:

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-02-2010, 09:43 AM
More change we can believe in! :coffee:

Illinois primaries are today.

I have to tell you the Dems are running scared here....they know that conservative victories in the Presidents homestate...and losing the senate seat that he held...will be slap in the face, that will be harder to explain away then Massachusetts was.

There is a tremendous backlash here. With the national deficit skyrocketing...unemployment at 11.1 percent...the state budget 10 billion in the hole... the last two govenors indicted for coruption, the vacated senate seat being "sold" to Roland Burris....the Dems are already trying to spin their way out of voter anger.

If Illinois throws its votes to the other side of the aisle...it will be an indictement on the current administration and the corruption of the dishonest Illinois politics of which so many have used as a springboard.

revefsreleets
02-02-2010, 10:35 AM
Well, at least they are getting a pay raise, I guess. To be honest, knowing what we know about Obama, I'm actually a bit surprised that he's giving them a raise at all...

SteelerNation12
02-02-2010, 11:54 AM
They deserve to be the highest paid people in the country. But I can go work fast food and make more than them.

My friends are in the Marines. They make them paid for uniforms, boots and everything. Its stupid how the government treats them.

tony hipchest
02-02-2010, 10:56 PM
someone refresh my memory please...

what was mccains proposed pay rate increase for the military?

wasnt it like 0.0% ?

way to close out the first decade of a 100 year war. :thumbsup:

:poop: bad barry! :nono:

SCSTILLER
02-03-2010, 06:16 AM
someone refresh my memory please...

what was mccains proposed pay rate increase for the military?

wasnt it like 0.0% ?

way to close out the first decade of a 100 year war. :thumbsup:

:poop: bad barry! :nono:


Who is our President again?

HometownGal
02-03-2010, 06:38 AM
Who is our President again?

:thumbsup::drink::thumbsup:

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-03-2010, 06:41 AM
someone refresh my memory please...

what was mccains proposed pay rate increase for the military?

wasnt it like 0.0% ?

way to close out the first decade of a 100 year war. :thumbsup:

:poop: bad barry! :nono:

Not sure if we are thinking of the same Bill. I know that McCain was against an "additional" .5 % increase on an proposed 3.4 % increase. That was in May of 2008.

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-03-2010, 07:46 AM
You know what really burns my butt about this....???

In this new age of "wealth distribution"....apparantly its more important to fill the pockets of those on the welfare dockets, then it is to fill the pockets of those who are serving our country.

HometownGal
02-03-2010, 07:52 AM
Senator McCain was in favor of raising military pay and benefits:

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain_Defense.htm

McCain opposes reviving a military draft even though enlistments are down and the services could be forced to return to selective conscription if they can’t fill the ranks with higher pay and improved benefits. The modern military requires technical skills to operate today’s sophisticated weapons, and it takes a long time to acquire those skills, McCain said. McCain blamed Congress for the shortage, saying it has failed to provide the necessary funding to raise military pay & benefits.


http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain_VoteMatch.htm

zulater
02-03-2010, 08:28 AM
Senator McCain was in favor of raising military pay and benefits:

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain_Defense.htm




http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain_VoteMatch.htm

Don't go spoiling the argument with facts HTG. :wink02:


:chuckle:

revefsreleets
02-03-2010, 09:54 AM
Senator McCain was in favor of raising military pay and benefits:

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain_Defense.htm




http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain_VoteMatch.htm

Yes, he made a very specific point of stating that one of the ONLY things he was willing to increase spending on was military pay. That was around the same time he proposed HIS spending freeze idea, which Obama hated and mocked, but is now adopting.

hindes204
02-03-2010, 11:30 AM
:banging::banging::banging:

ridiculous.......i struggle to pay my bills on a monthly basis, and i spent almost half of last year in the Middle East away from my family. I volunteered for the military, and would sign up 100 times again if i had the chance, regardless of pay, and i am not asking for a handout by any means, but i think we (the military) deserves a little more than 1.4%. Especially when you look at the civilian equivilancy of what we do, we are way under what we should be getting. And the civillian equivilancy to our job never has to deal with half the things we do. Most of the military doesnt even have a civillian equvilant job to compare to, because what is asked of some of us, nobody will do!

stlrtruck
02-03-2010, 11:50 AM
:banging::banging::banging:

ridiculous.......i struggle to pay my bills on a monthly basis, and i spent almost half of last year in the Middle East away from my family. I volunteered for the military, and would sign up 100 times again if i had the chance, regardless of pay, and i am not asking for a handout by any means, but i think we (the military) deserves a little more than 1.4%. Especially when you look at the civilian equivilancy of what we do, we are way under what we should be getting. And the civillian equivilancy to our job never has to deal with half the things we do. Most of the military doesnt even have a civillian equvilant job to compare to, because what is asked of some of us, nobody will do!

The military definitely deserve more than 1.4%. That's more a slap in the face than anything else.

steelreserve
02-03-2010, 12:10 PM
To be fair, the military (and everyone else who still has a job) already got a "raise" of 3% this year because of the economy going into the shitter. GDP goes down, your overall spending power goes up, even if you're making the same amount you were last year. That's how they probably figured it.

And honestly, while I understand most military personnel do not exactly get paid like CEOs, any raise at all is better than most government agencies are doing. At least where I live, virtually every state worker had to either take a pay cut this year, or take 2-3 UNPAID "days off" per month -- and that's if they're not losing their jobs entirely due to massive layoffs, like the teachers and transit workers.

So, sorry -- despite all the ever-popular smiley-banging-head-against-a-walls, this really a non-issue. Do I think we ought to take better care of our troops in general? Sure. Do I think OMGbama comes up with a lot of harebrained schemes that are doomed to fail? You bet. But this is really no reason for outrage, and in fact, this thread kind of looks like people just automatically getting mad at the government without thinking, just because it's the government and it's OMGbama.

tony hipchest
02-03-2010, 05:54 PM
Don't go spoiling the argument with facts HTG. :wink02:


:chuckle:im not sure i would call promises made in 2000 (while wrasslin g-dub for the republican ticket) facts that really pertain to the here and now, and this discussion. thats kinda like saying he was in favor of military pay raise while he was a naval pilot.



So, sorry -- despite all the ever-popular smiley-banging-head-against-a-walls, this really a non-issue. Do I think we ought to take better care of our troops in general? Sure. Do I think OMGbama comes up with a lot of harebrained schemes that are doomed to fail? You bet. But this is really no reason for outrage, and in fact, this thread kind of looks like people just automatically getting mad at the government without thinking, just because it's the government and it's OMGbama.

totally agree. i get a kick out of all the panic, double talk, and instant :shout:-outrage!!! that goes on around here. :willy:

obama pushes $3.8 trillion budget- "whaaaaaa" :crying01:
obama to trim $250 billion- "whaaaaa... its not enough" :crying01:
obama to eliminate moon missions in cost cutting measures- 'whaaaa" :crying01:
obama to give military 1.4% raise- "whaaaaa.... its not enough" :crying01:
obama hires oprahs personal chef- "whaaaaa" :crying01:
obamas chef makes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for obamas daughters- "whaaaaa" :crying01:
obama eats a burger at mcdonalds- "whaaaa" :crying01:

the ZOMGoblins are out in full force.

Leftoverhard
02-03-2010, 06:17 PM
im not sure i would call promises made in 2000 (while wrasslin g-dub for the republican ticket) facts that really pertain to the here and now, and this discussion. thats kinda like saying he was in favor of military pay raise while he was a naval pilot.

I'd like to go on record saying that I'm in favor of everyone getting a raise, sometime, in the future.


totally agree. i get a kick out of all the panic, double talk, and instant :shout:-outrage!!! that goes on around here. :willy:

Wait - the sky isn't falling?

obama pushes $3.8 trillion budget- "whaaaaaa" :crying01:
obama to trim $250 billion- "whaaaaa... its not enough" :crying01:
obama to eliminate moon missions in cost cutting measures- 'whaaaa" :crying01:
obama to give military 1.4% raise- "whaaaaa.... its not enough" :crying01:
obama hires oprahs personal chef- "whaaaaa" :crying01:
obamas chef makes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for obamas daughters- "whaaaaa" :crying01:
obama eats a burger at mcdonalds- "whaaaa" :crying01:

LOL

The Patriot
02-03-2010, 06:20 PM
The Bush Administration increased the pay raise by 2.2% in 2007 which, between Obama's 1.4% raise, in a month, is a difference of about 20 dollars for the average military salary.

The American soldier had it great before Obama got here.

http://www.navycs.com/2010-military-pay-chart.html

I guess you don't see what's wrong with your country until the guy you support is out of office.

Vincent
02-03-2010, 07:35 PM
A $13T economy should express its gratitude to those that make its markets safe in the form of exceptional compensation, benefits, housing, equipment, training and esteem. To reward soldiers and veterans with anything less is a damned disgrace.

The armed forces consisted of 1.45M in 2009, As we enter 2010, the roster of federal employees will rise to 2.15M with most of the growth on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 "workers", to 1.43M. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/ So we have a federal civilian "workforce" the size of our entire armed forces.

Federal employees received a pay raise of 3.9% in 2009, 3.5% in 2008, 2.7% in 2007 and 3.1% in 2006. The average civilian employee had a salary of $69,061 in 2008. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federal_govt_finances_employment.html The median salary for an E6 in the Navy was $29,399 in 2008. http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_LG12000014.html

Why the @#$% does the federal gubmint need 2.15 million employees? And what possible excuse is there for having as many civilian employees as soldiers? Get rid of the dead wood and pay the soldiers what they richly deserve.

tony hipchest
02-03-2010, 10:39 PM
A $13T economy should express its gratitude to those that make its markets safe in the form of exceptional compensation, benefits, housing, equipment, training and esteem. To reward soldiers and veterans with anything less is a damned disgrace.

...

Why the @#$% does the federal gubmint need 2.15 million employees? And what possible excuse is there for having as many civilian employees as soldiers? Get rid of the dead wood and pay the soldiers what they richly deserve.

i am as pro military as anyone and totally agree with the first paragraph, but understand the 2nd.

the days of GI's stripping and waxing floors, and plumbing toilets, and maintaining base housing is about dead. the military has found that it is cheaper to contract all that out as opposed to pay a 20 year enlisted person a lifetime of medical and benefits for those services.

all is not doom and gloom though, and i will only speak of what i have seen first hand in my region as a contractor.

in the past 3 years, the base i was born on, and currently employs me, has torn down just about all of the housing. (including the cinder block duplex i lived in about 30 years ago, and the house my mom and her parents lived in almost 40 years ago).

all that remains is the "old" officers housing (from about the early 80's) which is now looking like the ghetto of the base.

all of it has been replaced with some fancy new shit and privitized. 2-4 stripers with family have access to the old officers housing. airmen with family have access to some nice little 3 year old homes that would easilly fetch $100,000+ in town.

but the houses that are going up now are beautiful. all are 2 stories with 2 car garages. i would guess the smallest are 1700 square feet. all the offecers housing is 3 car garage. the commanders house is HUGE and even has a place to park boat/rv, and has a little mother in laws cottage. while real estate around here is $100/ft sq i would see it around 400-500K on the open market.

these homes would easilly cost half a mil to a mil on the coasts, or in a metropolitain area.

1.4% increase or not, it sure as hell beats what i was raised in.

just south, at ft. bliss, they are completely re-building an entire new base equipped to hold 100,000 troops and family members. everything is brand new, including all the 4 lane highways, and overpasses to accommodate. while just a tiny sliver of texas, the base and its range encompases a land mass the size of rhode island.

im thinking their housing and bowling alley is gonna be pretty nice. i believe its like a $2 billion dollar re-build, which is like what? 2 of jerry jones football palaces.

on the flipside is white sands missle range. for the first time in my life i finally took a tour last week. we are bidding on the complete facility maintenance, grounds maintenance, and janitorial for the entire base which encompases 240+ bldgs in a 100X40 mile radius. its hard to believe that some of our finest, most technologically advanced weapons and defense systems are developed at a base that is still using infrastructure from the '50's. but the base is set to grow, and the fact that they are looking to hire us shows they are looking to modernize. all it took was a 2 day conference with contracting to show they are operating 20 years in the past.

then again, their main focus is big picture/grand scale as opposed to small fry such as us. ive never seen a base where civilian govt employees are offered base housing, schooling, commissary, gasoline, etc. but that is how it is there. every kid may not have a wii, playstation, internet, pool in their back yard, after school tutoring, etc. but all those amneties are made available.

for taking a step back in time, i was pretty impressed.

as far as me, i havent received a pay raise since 2005 (havent even asked for one, even though my workload has more than doubled).

then again, i have purchased only about 4 tanks of gas in the past 7 years. i have no idea what it is like to have a cellphone bill (let alone paying for a blackberry). i enjoy my new company tahoe, and probably shoulda lied about using it for personal use to avoid paying taxes on it, like every other smart person does. :thumbsup: business travel and per diem is pretty nice- the president of our company only puts us up in a place he would expect to stay.

anyways, the point is, i would gladly accept a 1.4% pay increase even though i know i am worth much more.

MasterOfPuppets
02-04-2010, 12:05 AM
one could only speculate on how the former vet, mCcain would have treated our military personel....:scratchchin: ....he's been shitting on the vets for years...:noidea:

"It's time for Senator McCain to stand up for veterans and be a leader," the chairman of VoteVets, Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz, said in a statement. "The success or failure of this bill largely rests on his shoulders. He is the de facto leader of the Republican Party. If he signs onto the bill, it will pass and become law. If he doesn't support it, he needs to explain why he doesn't."

McCain's silence on the GI Bill may surprise some observers, given the senator's six years behind bars as a former prisoner of war in North Vietnam. On the campaign trail, McCain speaks almost daily about "supporting the troops."

But organizations that have followed the senator's voting record have noted that McCain's actions are rarely in line with the interests of veterans' organizations. In 2006, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a failing grade of "D" based on his voting record.

The same year, McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans just 20 percent of the time. The main reason for the low scores is a consistent pattern by Senator McCain of voting against appropriating money for veterans' health care and disability payments.

According to Disabled American Veterans, McCain voted almost a dozen separate times against spending additional money on veterans' health care in 2005 and 2006, even as hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Marines were returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and filing disability claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

During that time, McCain voted against expanding mental health care and readjustment counseling for returning service members, efforts to expand inpatient and outpatient treatment for injured veterans, and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans must pay to obtain prescription drugs.

"There was an effort to increase the budget for veterans' health care beyond what President [George W.] Bush had requested as part of his budget," Disabled American Veterans spokesperson Dave Autry said. "The idea was to increase funding for veterans' health care by cutting back on tax breaks for the wealthy. The proposals were pushed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans in almost straight party-line votes."

McCain's vote also helped defeat a proposal by Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow that would have made veterans' health care an entitlement program like social security, so that medical care would not become a political football to be argued over in Congress each budget cycle.

"The budget and appropriations process for veterans has been late the majority of the time the last 20 years and the funding proposed by the president is almost always insufficient," Autry said. "As a result, the VA could not plan for the number of returning veterans and staff the medical centers based on the likely demand. So we tried to make the funding sufficient, timely and predictable. If the Stabenow bill had passed, it would have been a big step in that direction."

Like the other funding bills, the Stabenow bill failed on a virtual party-line vote with John McCain voting against the veterans. According to Autry, virtually every single initiative to support veterans was defeated in Congress until the Democrats took control of both houses in January 2007.

McCain's Democratic rivals for president, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both support the bipartisan effort to improve the GI Bill. In 2006, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Obama a B+ and Clinton an A-. Obama and Clinton both voted with the interest of Disabled American Veterans 80 percent of the time.

http://www.military.com/news/article/vets-to-mccain-back-new-gi-bill.html

SCSTILLER
02-04-2010, 06:19 AM
The Bush Administration increased the pay raise by 2.2% in 2007 which, between Obama's 1.4% raise, in a month, is a difference of about 20 dollars for the average military salary.

The American soldier had it great before Obama got here.

http://www.navycs.com/2010-military-pay-chart.html

I guess you don't see what's wrong with your country until the guy you support is out of office.

And the military considered that a slap in the face also considering the growth of the economy, price of the housing market, price of everything going up at the time

one could only speculate on how the former vet, mCcain would have treated our military personel....:scratchchin: ....he's been shitting on the vets for years...:noidea:


http://www.military.com/news/article/vets-to-mccain-back-new-gi-bill.html

Again, like I said in post #11, Who is our president?

HometownGal
02-04-2010, 06:38 AM
Defense Budget Raises Military Pay By 3.4 Percent; Allows Gitmo Detainees Into U.S. For Trial

October 23, 2009 7:57 a.m. EST
Topics: Politics, United States

Kris Alingod - AHN Contributor

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The Senate on Thursday passed the final version of the 2010 Defense budget, legislation that provides the military with a pay raise and funds to procure, despite the Pentagon recommendation not to do so, an alternate engine for the F-35 program. Two controversial measures are attached to the sweeping legislation: an expansion of federal hate crimes to include attacks on gays, and a measure prohibiting the release of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the U.S. except for trial.

The 2010 National Defense Authorization Act was approved and sent to the White House by a vote of 68-29. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) was the lone Democrat to join Republicans in opposing the bill.

Ten Republicans voted in support, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), John Ensign (R-NV), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Richard Lugar (R-IN) and George Voinovich (R-OH).

Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond (R-MO), National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the top Republican in the Armed Services Committee, also supported the bill.

Sens. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) did not vote.

The $680 billion defense bill provides uniformed military with a pay raise of 3.4 percent, half percent more than what the Pentagon requested as well as the annual inflation rate.

Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7016779830#ixzz0eZP8CEYK

HometownGal
02-04-2010, 06:50 AM
In December 2007, McCain praised provisions in a conference report accompanying the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act for pay raises for military personnel and for an increase in "Army and Marine end-strength."

http://www.cfr.org/bios/662/john_mccain.html#11

MasterOfPuppets
02-04-2010, 09:49 AM
and where was the outrage when bu...bu...bush felt the military didn't need a big pay raise ? :noidea:



Bush Threatens Veto Over Troop Pay Raise, Military Widow Benefits

bushtroopsh.jpg The Bush administration today threatened to a veto a House defense spending bill over a 3.5 percent pay raise for U.S. soldiers and a $40/month increase in benefits for military widows, among other provisions. The legislation passed the House today 397-27.

ThinkProgress noted last night that the White House opposed the pay raise for troops:

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill. [...]

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

The White House says it also opposes:

– a $40/month allowance for military survivors, saying the current benefits are “sufficient”

– additional benefits for surviving family members of civilian employees

– price controls for prescription drugs under TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for military personnel and their dependents

House Minority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said today he was “shocked and disappointed in the President’s threat,” noting that Bush’s problems with the bill are over measures that benefit “the very people who sacrifice the most in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and who serve at home and overseas.”

revefsreleets
02-04-2010, 09:52 AM
So it looks like McCain is the bad guy because he's LESS bad for the military than Barry.

Conveniently, the article posted above left out the EXACT reason McCain votes against these bills: They are laden with non-defense pork. This is nothing more or less than the Dems playing politics with the troops well-being by trying to drape themselves in a flag with the title of the bill, but actually back-dooring the taxpayers by setting forth these POS all-or-nothing bills completely filled with wasteful spending.

Then they turn around and claim that the GOP is anti-US-troops because they won't get with the program and vote for these horrible bills! What's worse, this garbage actually PLAYS with the less than astute US public who actually buy into this drivel and rot!

And what is the follow-up response?

More "Bu-bu-Bush".

This is about Obama. Please STOP bringing Bush into these arguments...he's no longer the President, and it was never a valid excuse for Obama's missteps anyway.

It's astonishing....truly astonishing.

The Patriot
02-04-2010, 12:26 PM
Well, at least they are getting a pay raise, I guess. To be honest, knowing what we know about Obama, I'm actually a bit surprised that he's giving them a raise at all...

So it looks like McCain is the bad guy because he's LESS bad for the military than Barry.

Conveniently, the article posted above left out the EXACT reason McCain votes against these bills: They are laden with non-defense pork. This is nothing more or less than the Dems playing politics with the troops well-being by trying to drape themselves in a flag with the title of the bill, but actually back-dooring the taxpayers by setting forth these POS all-or-nothing bills completely filled with wasteful spending.

Then they turn around and claim that the GOP is anti-US-troops because they won't get with the program and vote for these horrible bills! What's worse, this garbage actually PLAYS with the less than astute US public who actually buy into this drivel and rot!

And what is the follow-up response?

More "Bu-bu-Bush".

This is about Obama. Please STOP bringing Bush into these arguments...he's no longer the President, and it was never a valid excuse for Obama's missteps anyway.

It's astonishing....truly astonishing.

Boy did your tune change quick. :coffee:

revefsreleets
02-04-2010, 12:30 PM
Boy did your tune change quick. :coffee:

No, I did not.

What I first did was voice my astonishment at the fact that an anti-military President awarded a pay raise. I was genuinely surprised.

The rest of my post is reacting to the knee-jerk apologists posting silly deflections while once again ignoring the actual point of the OP.

There was only one post in the entire thread that actually came close to actually defending Obama's lowballing the military. The rest was deflection and diversion.

The Patriot
02-04-2010, 12:59 PM
No, I did not.

What I first did was voice my astonishment at the fact that an anti-military President awarded a pay raise. I was genuinely surprised.
Honestly. What the hell are you talking about? :shake01:

A quick look at his foreign polices would quickly dispel that lie.


The rest of my post is reacting to the knee-jerk apologists posting silly deflections while once again ignoring the actual point of the OP.

There was only one post in the entire thread that actually came close to actually defending Obama's lowballing the military. The rest was deflection and diversion.

If by "apologists" you mean those who point out that this problem (among many others) persisted during the former Administration, then you're wrong. It has everything to do with what the OP said, because introducing facts tears down the bullshit perception that Obama is a radical anti-American.

Is it getting crowded there in the "B-B-Bush" refuge. :chuckle:

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-04-2010, 01:54 PM
im not sure i would call promises made in 2000 (while wrasslin g-dub for the republican ticket) facts that really pertain to the here and now, and this discussion. thats kinda like saying he was in favor of military pay raise while he was a naval pilot.





I want making an accusation..simply asking you WHEN McClain proposed a 0% raise for the military.

I havnt been able to find that fact on my own and simply wanted a link.

xfl2001fan
02-04-2010, 02:10 PM
1.4% pay raise...what's the rate of inflation looking like?

:sigh:

I'm now an Active Duty Sergeant (E-5) in the Army...and my family is on WIC. We shop at Aldi's, Sam's Club, GFS and places like that. We get by...but when bad stuff happens (like the transmission on my Cavalier blowing out), we have to tighten up our belts and do some fancy pants magic to get by.

revefsreleets
02-04-2010, 02:13 PM
Honestly. What the hell are you talking about? :shake01:

A quick look at his foreign polices would quickly dispel that lie.



If by "apologists" you mean those who point out that this problem (among many others) persisted during the former Administration, then you're wrong. It has everything to do with what the OP said, because introducing facts tears down the bullshit perception that Obama is a radical anti-American.

Is it getting crowded there in the "B-B-Bush" refuge. :chuckle:

A quick look at his record PRIOR to his election as President was what I was going on. It hasn't improved much since, but the realities of the job have trumped his naive prior Utopian views.

Please DEFEND Obama on his own merits. For the 11,000th time, simply diverting attention to what others do in no way exonerates Obama's actions. A Bush wrong continued by Obama is not JUST a Bush wrong, it BECOMES an Obama wrong...and one he should certainly know better than to commit since he campaigned as the anti-Bush (which has become a laughable joke).

Denying that you are not parroting the Bu-bu-bu Bush "refuge" (sic), by.....simply trotting out even more "But Bush did THIS" garbage is priceless....

revefsreleets
02-04-2010, 02:16 PM
1.4% pay raise...what's the rate of inflation looking like?

:sigh:

I'm now an Active Duty Sergeant (E-5) in the Army...and my family is on WIC. We shop at Aldi's, Sam's Club, GFS and places like that. We get by...but when bad stuff happens (like the transmission on my Cavalier blowing out), we have to tighten up our belts and do some fancy pants magic to get by.

Blame Bush. According to some around here, Bush awarding a 2.2% raise is somehow FAR worse than the smaller 1.4% that Obama doled out.

STILL shaking my head at that one.

HometownGal
02-04-2010, 05:31 PM
and where was the outrage when bu...bu...bush felt the military didn't need a big pay raise ? :noidea:

Hey!!! Only one bu, bu, but at a time. We're on the bu, bu, but McCain right now. :nono: :chuckle:

The Patriot
02-04-2010, 07:03 PM
A quick look at his record PRIOR to his election as President was what I was going on. It hasn't improved much since, but the realities of the job have trumped his naive prior Utopian views.

Please DEFEND Obama on his own merits. For the 11,000th time, simply diverting attention to what others do in no way exonerates Obama's actions. A Bush wrong continued by Obama is not JUST a Bush wrong, it BECOMES an Obama wrong...and one he should certainly know better than to commit since he campaigned as the anti-Bush (which has become a laughable joke).

Denying that you are not parroting the Bu-bu-bu Bush "refuge" (sic), by.....simply trotting out even more "But Bush did THIS" garbage is priceless....

The game changes when you start building him up to be a bolshevik monster. It's called card stacking, and its when you compile a list of problems with the government and insinuate that they derive from a culture Obama has created. It paints a false picture of a nonexistent decline.

So, yes, I will continue to "Bu-bu-bush" you whenever you start one of your OUTRAGE threads over a problem that predated Obama.

tony hipchest
02-04-2010, 08:32 PM
I want making an accusation..simply asking you WHEN McClain proposed a 0% raise for the military.

I havnt been able to find that fact on my own and simply wanted a link.

i didnt think you were, and unlike some others here, i didnt pass it off as fact...

i wasnt sure myself, which is why i asked for anyone to refresh my memory. htg's 1st links were terribly outdated. the 2nd ones were much more recent and relevant.

i was thinking of the ones you mentioned and his proposed spending freeze.

xfl2001fan
02-05-2010, 05:11 AM
Blame Bush. According to some around here, Bush awarding a 2.2% raise is somehow FAR worse than the smaller 1.4% that Obama doled out.

STILL shaking my head at that one.

No worries...

I think I'll blame Fox News instead. Hard to go wrong there since they're the only evil-right-wing-nutjob media outlet left...they seemed to support Bush and McCain, so they're more at fault than either guy. :P

revefsreleets
02-05-2010, 09:27 AM
The game changes when you start building him up to be a bolshevik monster. It's called card stacking, and its when you compile a list of problems with the government and insinuate that they derive from a culture Obama has created. It paints a false picture of a nonexistent decline.

So, yes, I will continue to "Bu-bu-bush" you whenever you start one of your OUTRAGE threads over a problem that predated Obama.

You are, again, barking up the wrong tree. I know the definitions of Socialism and Bolshevism, and have never ONCE used those words to describe Obama. Let me clarify yet again. I do NOT think Obama is a socialist.

So, since your argument against me is based on things I've never stated or inferred, would you like to try again? Perhaps THIS time you might like to address MY arguments...it will be a little more difficult, I know, but you can probably come up with SOMETHING, I'd think...

Just for clarification purposes, I'm NOT blaming Obama for many of these problems. I'm blaming him for EXACERBATING them. In fact, I think by him spending so much time clinging to his horrible campaign promises, he's compounded his already bad problems and made them far worse.

My biggest problem with the left is this blindness they seem to possess. They bashed and bashed Bush, and it was supposed to be okay to do so on it's face. But when comparisons were made to Clinton, the libs made a big deal how Bush was Bush and to stay on topic.

Now, a few years later, Obama is coming under HEAVY scrutiny for his gaffe's, missteps and mistakes, and the left's primary and secondary defense is pretty much.......................blaming Bush and looking backwards. So it was WRONG for the right, but it's RIGHT for the left?

The most over-the-top ridiculousness is that even flying right in the face of this undenaible occurrence, the left is simply pushing on, stating "Damned right were ONLY going to defend Obama by blaming Bush!". Then again, even Obama himself seems to really only have THAT one trick up his sleeve...so I guess I can see the dilemma.

For all Bush's faults and problems, at least the guy had principles and stuck to them. Obama seems to simply pander and flip-flop from week to week. It makes TRULY defending his positions (or, more accurately stated, lack thereof) impossible. Thus, instead of having a two-pronged attack of both being able to deflect to Bush AND defend Obama, the latter position is completely untenable. The left's response to this impossible position of to simply ignore their own glaring weakness and push on with this tired "Bu bu bu Bush" nonsensical garbage of an "argument".

There's a glaring example of it right here in this thread. Bush gave a paltry pay raise of 2.2%. Obama followed it up with an even smaller raise of 1.4%. But, in the eyes of the left, the 2.2% from Bush is WORSE than the smaller 1.4% from Obama. There's not only a lack of logic and rationale thought at work here, it's worse...it's a true gigantic blind spot, a simple inability to see ANY problems with a bad leader making bad mistakes, mistakes that have NOTHING to do with ANY other leader other than the one actually MAKING these bad decisions. There is no deflection or diversion that can occult this glaring fact.

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-05-2010, 11:40 AM
i didnt think you were, and unlike some others here, i didnt pass it off as fact...

i wasnt sure myself, which is why i asked for anyone to refresh my memory. htg's 1st links were terribly outdated. the 2nd ones were much more recent and relevant.

i was thinking of the ones you mentioned and his proposed spending freeze.

Alright....No problem. As I get older I dont trust my own memory.:chuckle:

MasterOfPuppets
02-05-2010, 01:02 PM
My biggest problem with the left is this blindness they seem to possess. They bashed and bashed Bush, and it was supposed to be okay to do so on it's face. But when comparisons were made to Clinton, the libs made a big deal how Bush was Bush and to stay on topic. thats strange... i can't seem to find any of those threads...:noidea: ...infact up until a few months prior to this election , i don't recall politics being much of a talking point around here...at least not since i've been here....:popcorn:

revefsreleets
02-05-2010, 01:16 PM
thats strange... i can't seem to find any of those threads...:noidea: ...infact up until a few months prior to this election , i don't recall politics being much of a talking point around here...at least not since i've been here....:popcorn:

OK, I'll amend.

The defense of Obama is to blame Bush AND to selectively block memories of previous poor behavior by the left towards Bush and the right.

The Patriot
02-05-2010, 08:42 PM
OK, I'll amend.

The defense of Obama is to blame Bush AND to selectively block memories of previous poor behavior by the left towards Bush and the right.

Obama tried to pass a health-care bill this summer and Sarah Palin accused him of organizing "death" panels that would decide if babies had the right to live. LMFAO!

And your still butthurting about Bush?

GBMelBlount
02-05-2010, 08:48 PM
Obama tried to pass a health-care bill this summer and Sarah Palin accused him of organizing "death" panels that would decide if babies had the right to live. LMFAO!



....and do you not understand the spirit of her point? This will naturally happen with elderly people as well.

This is simply unavoidable if the government takes over.

I'm not saying this with anger or a malice, these types of things WILL happen because of cost overruns, inefficiencies and complete mismanagement by the government.

revefsreleets
02-05-2010, 09:01 PM
Obama tried to pass a health-care bill this summer and Sarah Palin accused him of organizing "death" panels that would decide if babies had the right to live. LMFAO!

And your still butthurting about Bush?
Bu-bu-bu-Palin?

Really?

That's the BEST you can come up with?

That's awful. I mean pathetic. I don't watch Fox News. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. PLEASE stop with these pathetically lame attempts to discredit ME based on the behaviors of others. I know you have NOTHING, but at least get your nothing right....

Obama did NOTHING. He left it up to his Congress. They failed miserably. He STILL would have rubber stamped any POS healthcare legislation they passed, no matter how atrocious. He gets credit for rhetoric. Empty rhetoric. That's all.

The Patriot
02-05-2010, 09:25 PM
Bu-bu-bu-Palin?

Really?

That's the BEST you can come up with?

That's awful. I mean pathetic. I don't watch Fox News. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. PLEASE stop with these pathetically lame attempts to discredit ME based on the behaviors of others. I know you have NOTHING, but at least get your nothing right....

Obama did NOTHING. He left it up to his Congress. They failed miserably. He STILL would have rubber stamped any POS healthcare legislation they passed, no matter how atrocious. He gets credit for rhetoric. Empty rhetoric. That's all.

Do you understand the sheer hypocrisy of you criticizing me for the belittlement of Bush and then chiding me for bringing up the belittlement of Obama?!? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Maybe I don't listen to guys like Olberman either, revs.

Where did I "attempt to discredit you"?! It's hard to have a discussion with you when you become so grossly offended by imaginary insults. I made the point that all politicians receive negative criticism. Sue me.

The Patriot
02-05-2010, 09:28 PM
....and do you not understand the spirit of her point? This will naturally happen with elderly people as well.

This is simply unavoidable if the government takes over.

I'm not saying this with anger or a malice, these types of things WILL happen because of cost overruns, inefficiencies and complete mismanagement by the government.

Next time, I would rather she use the formidable argument you just made. I'm glad the bill hasn't passed, but when you bring up "baby-killing" you kind of hurt your own cause.

revefsreleets
02-05-2010, 09:36 PM
Do you understand the sheer hypocrisy of you criticizing me for the belittlement of Bush and then chiding me for bringing up the belittlement of Obama?!? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Maybe I don't listen to guys like Olberman either, revs.

Where did I "attempt to discredit you"?! It's hard to have a discussion with you when you become so grossly offended by imaginary insults. I made the point that all politicians receive negative criticism. Sue me.

I'm not offended. I'm just waiting for you (or ANY liberal posting on this board, for that matter) to actually ONCE put together a well thought out, eloquent and logical defense for the actions (and inactions) their President of choice is taking.

It's not that hard! Yet..................nothing. And this latest line of defense is even worse! You get farther and farther away from defending your candidate when you rip harder into me. WTF do I have to do with all the mistakes and eff-ups Obama is making daily?

Your growing frustration is obvious. Your EXTREMELY poor choice of targets on which to release that frustration is anything but....

The Patriot
02-05-2010, 10:07 PM
I'm not offended. I'm just waiting for you (or ANY liberal posting on this board, for that matter) to actually ONCE put together a well thought out, eloquent and logical defense for the actions (and inactions) their President of choice is taking.

It's not that hard! Yet..................nothing. And this latest line of defense is even worse! You get farther and farther away from defending your candidate when you rip harder into me. WTF do I have to do with all the mistakes and eff-ups Obama is making daily?

Your growing frustration is obvious. Your EXTREMELY poor choice of targets on which to release that frustration is anything but....
Tell me, revs. How the hell do I recognize and defend an Obama mistake if, by wanting to defend it, I would not have considered it to be a mistake? Riddle me that. :banging:

A logical defense encompassing what? EVERYTHING??? Why don't you cite something specific, and I'll give you an opinion. That's how people discuss things.

GBMelBlount
02-05-2010, 10:42 PM
Next time, I would rather she use the formidable argument you just made. I'm glad the bill hasn't passed, but when you bring up "baby-killing" you kind of hurt your own cause.

Thanks.

I do understand your point, Patriot.

I did not see or hear her comment in context and as I'm sure you know, a large part of any argument is the "delivery".

The Patriot
02-05-2010, 11:41 PM
Thanks.

I do understand your point, Patriot.

I did not see or hear her comment in context and as I'm sure you know, a large part of any argument is the "delivery".

Here's why I think health care reform is necessary.

We already have socialized medicine for the elderly and it takes up 40% of our federal budget - not good or sustainable. We have it because we believe that the elderly deserve the care they need. The problem is that it affects capitalism and here is how:

If a person on medicare has Parkinson's, they get treatment, but then the side affects of that treatment might enlarge their prostate, so they get another treatment, and that too has side affects, and so they get another treatment, and what you end up having are these elderly persons with long lists of prescriptions. This is payed for by taxpayers, and the drug industry ends up making a lot of money.

This is a problem because the drug industry has no incentive to create a better product if having a durg with side affects will actually create more prescriptions. It's not on purpose, but it disrupts supply and demand because the sick need whatever medicine they can get, even if it has side affects, and the fact that the government pays for it all further complicates the matter.

That's why I understand Washington wanting to get involved in the drug industry: because the industry is making a killing on taxpayer dollars. It's not capitalistic (in fact, it's socialistic), but you can't expect the government to keep writing checks for whatever drug companies produce. Something has to change. Either we steer towards socialized medicine or away from it, which would mean screwing all the people who spent a lifetime paying for social security. I don't have the answer

That's my take,

okay revs?

revefsreleets
02-07-2010, 09:30 PM
Good point, Pat....if most of what Obama is doing makes sense to you, then there is NO way I can debate with you.

As for specifics, that's laughable. When I get specific, you libbies go general and chide me for being too "small picture". When i scale up, and critique the whole mess, I'm again derided, this time for not being specific.

But there is ONE true consistency: Not a SHRED of real or meaningful rhetoric in defense for Obama. Just spin and deflection and word games.

The Patriot
02-07-2010, 10:35 PM
Good point, Pat....if most of what Obama is doing makes sense to you, then there is NO way I can debate with you.

As for specifics, that's laughable. When I get specific, you libbies go general and chide me for being too "small picture". When i scale up, and critique the whole mess, I'm again derided, this time for not being specific.

But there is ONE true consistency: Not a SHRED of real or meaningful rhetoric in defense for Obama. Just spin and deflection and word games.

BULL-SHIT!

I'm not gonna let you wriggle your way out of this one. You love to spout ambiguities, but when someone challenges you on something specific, you dodge it with a post like this.

Edit: I recant that. It's impossible to challenge you on anything, because your posts contain little substance. They spend too much time belittling the opinions of others.

revefsreleets
02-07-2010, 10:59 PM
BULL-SHIT!

I'm not gonna let you wriggle your way out of this one. You love to spout ambiguities, but when someone challenges you on something specific, you dodge it with a post like this.

Edit: I recant that. It's impossible to challenge you on anything, because your posts contain little substance. They spend too much time belittling the opinions of others.


Ahahahahha!

You cracked! You've lost it!

I have posted charts, graphs, articles galore, stats, facts, data, figures, etc....and that's not "substance" compared to what? You calling me names?

You've become a parody of yourself, and, since you're a Pat fans posting on another board mostly so you can bash people because your team won a couple more games in the head-to-head over the last few years, that's a pretty lowly place to be. A parody of a bad parody.

Save your sour-graped irrelevant and misguided response. Why not write it to your new Senator, Scott Brown? Maybe he'll listen to your drivel for awhile....

The Patriot
02-07-2010, 11:53 PM
Ahahahahha!

You cracked! You've lost it!

I have posted charts, graphs, articles galore, stats, facts, data, figures, etc....and that's not "substance" compared to what? You calling me names?

You've become a parody of yourself, and, since you're a Pat fans posting on another board mostly so you can bash people because your team won a couple more games in the head-to-head over the last few years, that's a pretty lowly place to be. A parody of a bad parody.

Save your sour-graped irrelevant and misguided response. Why not write it to your new Senator, Scott Brown? Maybe he'll listen to your drivel for awhile....

I never called you any names, and I don't bash people. But I do challenge people who reproach me for being elusive and then completely disregard an actual argument that surfaces.

I made a mistake this weekend. I challenged you for saying that Obama is anti-military, and got caught up in this wild-goose chase. I challenged you on something specific, and instead we talked about the disgraceful behavior of faceless liberals, Obama's ambiguous mistakes, and my sports affiliation.

Next time, I'll just let you post your meandering thoughts, and we'll both be content with our own realities.

:smile: