“Troops don’t need bigger pay raises,
By on May 16th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
“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. … 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.’“
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Disgusting.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:26 pmWhat would they spend it on…headstones?
May 16th, 2007 at 9:28 pmBut the Whitehouse stands behind Paul Wolfowitz who gave his girlfriend and unprecedented pay raise.
Sick.
The only sicker thing is the 29% who still support Bush without question.
-GSD
May 16th, 2007 at 9:28 pmSend troops back for third tours, extend tours, block their e-mail communications with their folks back home, and screw up their VA and health benefits.
But don’t, please don’t spend govt money on a 3.5% raise when you could hire a Blackwater contractor for three or four times the money and no liability for whatever they do. Crooks, just crooks.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:30 pm3.5% for 2008 — ouch.
Wankers.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:33 pmIs this what they mean by “support our troops?”
May 16th, 2007 at 9:33 pmRepublicans hate the troops. But, if they can siphon more money to Halliburton, there’s no stopping ‘em!
May 16th, 2007 at 9:36 pmAnd meanwhile, VA administrators got bonuses of up to $33,000. It’s pretty clear where priorities lie in DC.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:40 pmYep, supporting the troops again.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:42 pmI’ve heard of not supporting the troops, but seriously folks, with recruitment in the toilet, stop loss and tour extensions the norm as opposed to the exception, what the fu(k are they thinking? There is a finite supply of cruits who’ll sign up to risk their lives for the measly pay (sign up with Blackwater, make 3 times the pay!)
May 16th, 2007 at 9:44 pmHey Bush, Fu(k You!
That’s funny, since this administration had greatly increased various Army bonuses.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:44 pmRU, they have raised the sign-up bonus substantially. I am not sure that many 18 year old kids would look into the whole deal and might get sucked in by the extra 20 grand.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:45 pmWhat the hell is this administration doing, is it trying to paint itself as heartless? Logically, whether or not the troops should be given pay raises, giving them pay raises would be a plus for the image of this administration. Heck, they could turn it into a media frenzy and a nice photo-op for the president supporting the hard work the troops are doing. But, this administration has already proven how illogical is so it shouldn’t be expected, plus it’s a proposal from the other party, so naturally they are against it.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:49 pmm12, you know damn well they are targetting new recruits with those bonuses. Those that are already there are nothing but meat to Republicans.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:49 pmThe whole idea is to GET more recruits into Blackwater. They want their own private army. They don’t want a public one that requires a reason to go to war. Just more reasons to get these aholes out of office and fast.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:50 pmThe money is needed to pay Haliburton and other contractors.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:05 pmF the real troops on pay and on VA care later.
Why not just start paying them overtime. Use the written rule for placing American GIs in a combat zone as a base and then add the “new” interpretation of the new Prez and Pentagon tools are using for deployment for time and half pay. Sounds easy to me.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:08 pmWon’t it be fun to see the pubs support the administration on this one? I can’t even imagine how they will rationalize it.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pmMust buy more SUV magnets….. /sarcasm off
May 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pmSo, they can go out there and risk their lives, but they can’t have a decent wage for doing so? Damn, I’m in the wrong business.
WTF is wrong with these people?
May 16th, 2007 at 10:24 pm#14
Not just new recruits. A lot of the bonuses are to officers for re-enlistment.
The $20k bonus being offered to captains far outweighs the .5% difference being discussed here.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:25 pmOhhh, officers for reinlistment…because they can’t stopgap them? What about the grunt?
May 16th, 2007 at 10:28 pmm12, the privates who actually do the fighting are losing money by serving their country. Their families are struggling without the income. You are cool with that?
May 16th, 2007 at 10:30 pmThe objection to the payrise is just a warning rattle. In effect, what the malAdmin is saying is “that’s not where we plan to spend the money you gave us in the defense authorization bill”.
I just hope that that particular allocation has been written in such a way that it’s foolproof. Not just strings, but *hawsers* attached to it and the rest (more for healcare, family care, etc)
May 16th, 2007 at 10:32 pmAnd M12 is yet to find anything that the Bush administration has done wrong.
A supporter to the bitter end, eh?
Abouy 30 years ago I was in Munich for Oktoberfest, a band started playing military songs and a group in the back broke into a salute, complete with the “Seig Hiel” shout.
That’s M12, VV, Jake, Bottom Feeder, and the rest of the trolls. They will support these evil bastards, regardless of what they do.
Why M12? Do you need a hero figure so bad that you pick one and stick by him even when he’s proven to be a loser?
You are one sick twisted f*ck M12, it’s not a game of red team blue team, except to you partisan, cumswallowing whores.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:35 pmAnd still no body armor for them.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:40 pmA lot of the bonuses are to officers for re-enlistment.
The $20k bonus being offered to captains far outweighs the .5% difference being discussed here.
Comment by m12 — May 16, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
Well they’re not all officers are they? Thanks for showing us how you scum bag trolls will spin this. Shame on you all.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:49 pmglad the VA board got their $40,000 bonus!
May 16th, 2007 at 10:51 pm#22
Grunts also got significant enlistment bonuses.
http://usmilitary.about.com/ od/ payandbenefits/ a/ 06paychanges.htm
President Bush ushered in an across-the-board 3.1 percent military pay raise, effective Jan. 1, and a variety of other new or enhanced benefits for servicemembers and their families when he signed the 2006 National Defense Authorization Bill into law Jan. 6.
“Not only does it contain the routine annual pay raise, which is one-half percent higher than the raise measured in the private sector, but it also includes a number of increases in ceilings on some very important pays,” he said.
An increase in the maximum reenlistment bonus offered, from $60,000 to 90,000;
A higher maximum enlistment bonus, up from $20,000 to $40,000;
A new ceiling on hardship-duty pay, from $300 to $750 a month;
A doubling of the maximum assignment incentive pay for hard-to-fill billets or assignments, from $1,500 to $3,000 a month, now payable either in a lump sum or installments;
A new allowance to cover the first $150,000 in Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance premiums for troops serving in Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom;
A new bonus of up to $2,500 for servicemembers who agree to transfer from one service to another and serve for at least three years;
An incentive pay of up to $1,000 for servicemembers who refer someone who enlists in the Army and successfully completes basic training;
An average 5.9 percent increase in housing allowances, with authority to increase set levels temporarily by as much as 20 percent in areas affected by natural disasters or troop surges resulting from force realignments;
An increase of 2,000 pounds in the household goods weight allowance for senior noncommissioned officers E-7 and above;
Enhanced death benefits, resulting in a total of $238,000.00 for all deaths not previously qualified for enhanced benefits, and the permanent institution of a policy that continues the basic allowance for housing or government quarters for one year for families of deceased servicemembers;
Authority to pay the applicable overseas cost-of-living allowance to dependents who remain at their location outside the continental United States when a servicemember deploys from that location;
Expanded eligibility or increased ceilings for special pays for designated medical and dental officers, and officers with nuclear qualifications;
A bonus of up to $12,000 per year for both active and reserve members with certified language proficiency;
Payment of travel and lodging for families of hospitalized servicemembers wounded in combat zones or other designated areas.
Full housing allowance payments for reserve members called to active duty for more than 30 days, vs. the previous 140-day requirement;
May 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pmIncome replacement benefits to help offset the pay loss some reservists and guardsmen experience when called to active duty, based on specific guidelines provided in the law;
Increases in the maximum payment for accession and affiliation bonuses, from $10,000 and $15,000, respectively, to a consolidated $20,000 for enlistment in the Selected Reserve;
Boosts in the maximum affiliation bonus for officers in the Selected Reserve, from $6,000 to $10,000;
A bonus that could total up to $100,000 over a career for members with a designated critical skill or who volunteer to serve in a designated high-priority unit; and
Extension of eligibility for a prior-service enlistment bonus to include Selected Reserve members who previously received one.
Yep. Supporting us troops more and more every day!
May 16th, 2007 at 10:55 pmQuestion for the lefties: If a certain President were to propose a freeze in military pay growth for 1 year, that would clearly be wrong, wouldn’t it?
Because that happened in 1993.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:55 pmQuestion for the lefties: If a certain President were to propose a freeze in military pay growth for 1 year, that would clearly be wrong, wouldn’t it?
Because that happened in 1993.
Comment by m12 — May 16, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
Did we have that many troops fight in Iraq then? Oh and your post 29 you could have provided a link since nobody believes what you trolls type anyway.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:00 pmYeah, m12. Great.
“Witschonke emphasized that the new law does not guarantee that all servicemembers will qualify for these pays and benefits, or that those who do will receive the highest amounts authorized. Rather, he said, the law gives defense and service leaders the flexibility they need to tailor the force to meet operational, recruiting and retention goals.”
Meaning, this law does absolutely nothing. Nice try.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:04 pmDid we have that many troops fight in Iraq then? Oh and your post 29 you could have provided a link since nobody believes what you trolls type anyway.
No, they were fighting in Mogadishu.
There is a link in post 29. It’s from usmilitary.com.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:08 pm#33
How exactly do you go from “does not guarantee that all servicemembers will qualify for these pays and benefits, or that those who do will receive the highest amounts authorized” to “does absolutely nothing”?
May 16th, 2007 at 11:09 pmYou want to smear by attacking Clinton? Go ahead but there were a whole lot of things I disagreed with him on. I will name some of them as soon as I see any sign of independence from Bush by you, m12.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:10 pm#34 m12, you put it out there as if it was law and not some sort of half-a$$ed guildline.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:11 pmWell, geez, m12, if I were an employer and I had a captive work force what would I do? Would I pay more than I had to? Maybe. A Republican wouldn’t.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:13 pm#36
I disagree with this policy. Our troops deserve that .5% and more. But it’s completely false to say this administration has not paid our troops well, with annual increases well beyond inflation.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:15 pmOn Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on CNN that he was fed up with the Iraqi government and called it a “huge disappointment,” citing the parliament’s failure to pass an oil revenue bill, hold local elections or meet other benchmarks set by the U.S. Asked about a possible vote on a bill asking U.S. forces to leave, McConnell said: “I want to assure you, if they vote to ask us to leave, we’ll be glad to comply with their request.”
May 16th, 2007 at 11:20 pm#38
He has in the past.
http://media.www.michigandaily.com/ media/ storage/ paper851/ news/ 2001/ 02/ 13/ News/ Bush-Promises.Military.Pay.Raises-1410392.shtml
One of the first things he did when he came into office (before Iraq, before 911) was to announce increases in military compensation.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:21 pmIs that the best you have m12? Bush promises pay raises? Are you kidding?
May 16th, 2007 at 11:24 pm#39 Good show, matey!! That is that independence I expect from you.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:25 pmHow about Bush’s plan to cut imminent danger pay and family seperation allowances?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0815-09.htm
By the way, it was House Dems that went one step further this year. They approved 3.5% rather than the 3.0% Bush proposed.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/ news/ 2007/ 05/ military_payplan_070509w/
May 16th, 2007 at 11:30 pm#39 Good show, matey!! That is that independence I expect from you.
Comment by JPark
Jeebus, that was painful….
May 16th, 2007 at 11:31 pmBash Dems all you want, m12, people are starting to realize which party REALLY supports the troops.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:31 pmUS soldiers should stage a mutiny against Bush in Iraq, because the Blackwater thug mercenaries get paid at least $100,000+ a year now. Why should a soldier die for cheap pay, while others make big bucks.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:32 pmWhy should they get raises. They should be able to support their families on the HUGE salaries we are paying them. Right… How galling. Our taxpayer dollars pay Blackwater mercenaries $100,000 a year and Bush is complaining about a 3.5% raise for our troops who make maybe $20,000 a year.
Yep, these are the guys who support our troops.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:33 pmI disagree with this policy. Our troops deserve that .5% and more. But it’s completely false to say this administration has not paid our troops well, with annual increases well beyond inflation.
Comment by m12
The annual increases simply don’t make up for stop-loss and extending tours of duty for citizen soldiers. (reservists) I think family is more important than money.
He has in the past. -m12 Bush-Promises.Military.Pay.Raises-1410392.shtml.
The FY 2004 budget approved by Congress calls for reducing VA funding over a 10-year period by $6.2 billion. Cuts are in the areas of veterans’ health care and disability benefits.
It seems to be a shell game m12 and the cause of such things as Walter Reed.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:36 pmThat’s funny, since this administration had greatly increased various Army bonuses.
Comment by m12 — May 16, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Shut up, disgusting freak.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:38 pmBecause that happened in 1993.
Comment by m12 — May 16, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
They weren’t being used a cannon fodder then, a*shole.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:39 pmI’ve seen trolls scrape bottom deeper than I ever imagined possible, but I think m12 has just set a new low. Thanks for showing us just how ugly the Bush lickspittles can be.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:41 pm#42
I gave you a long list of compensation increases passed in 2006. You chose to dismiss it as a half-a$$ed guildline.
Shrug. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t force it to drink.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:47 pmWe all know who the military voted for.
http://www.usatoday.com/ news/ politicselections/ nation/ president/ 2004-10-29-military-vote_x.htm
The military traditionally votes Republican. In one recent informal survey of the armed forces and their family members, 72% of respondents said they favored Bush over Democrat John Kerry.
http://www.cnn.com/ ELECTION/ 2004/ pages/ results/ states/ US/ P/ 00/ epolls.0.html
57% of those with military service voted for George W. Bush.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:47 pmThe annual increases simply don’t make up for stop-loss and extending tours of duty for citizen soldiers. (reservists) I think family is more important than money.
If you say so. Then why spend your time whining about a tiny difference in pay increases?
May 16th, 2007 at 11:49 pmUS soldiers should stage a mutiny against Bush in Iraq, because the Blackwater thug mercenaries get paid at least $100,000+ a year now. Why should a soldier die for cheap pay, while others make big bucks.
They’d actually be revolting against Congress, who controls the power of the purse.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:51 pm#53 No, m12, you gave a list of SUGGESTED compensation increases. I thought we had already talked about that being kind of voluntary. Hmm, guess not.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:54 pm#54 Wow, I thought votes were private, m12. Do you know the percentages in 2006?
May 16th, 2007 at 11:55 pmI’d love to see m12 share his sentiments with some Marines, because if there is one thing I know for sure, m12 is a pussy.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:55 pm#56 What? Are you joking? Rethink that, m12.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:56 pmm12, I could give you a rough estimate of the number of vets running as Dems vs. Reps in 2006. But…you won’t like it. Don’t worry. Most veteran Republicans didn’t make it past the primaries. Republicans have a visceral hatred of voting for people with actual military experience.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:06 amI’d love to see m12 share his sentiments with some Marines, because if there is one thing I know for sure, m12 is a pussy.
Comment by VerbalKint — May 16, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
I’d buy a ticket.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:07 amTotal bonuses I’ve received in the military (12 years) $0.
My housing allowance went down this year (as far as I can tell, they’ve lowered what they consider ‘adequate’ housing).
Medical care is getting worse and worse. Can’t get a routine appointment at my base that is not at least 2 weeks out… whats the point of going to the doctor then? They are privatizing medical care… not enough military doctors (something like 25% manned).
Only pilots get bonuses for officers, and not all of them. Larger pool of enlisted personnel are eligible for bonuses, although very few are eligibile for the maximum bonuses (not to mention bonuses distort the pay scale with lower ranking enlisted earning more than higher ranking enlisted… how’s that for morale?).
The President wanted to lower the family separation allowance.
m12: Yes, 57% of military voted for Bush, because Rove et al disenfranchised a bunch of minority military voters who were deployed to Iraq (no one home to respond to voter verification cards)
As for, m12: “A lot of the bonuses are to officers for re-enlistment.” WTF? You clearly just cut and paste your military ‘expertise’. Officer’s don’t re-enlist (enlisted do). They’re in the military until they resign their commission or hit max tenure under ‘up or out’ promotion system.
nuff said
May 17th, 2007 at 12:42 amActiveduty, thanks for the post. It is nice to hear from someone with first hand experience.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:46 amObviously m12 doesn’t really give a cr*p about the troops and certainly doesn’t understand how a raise differs from a reenlistment bonus. dumba$$
May 17th, 2007 at 12:49 amIf you say so. Then why spend your time whining about a tiny difference in pay increases? Comment by m12
I don’t. I am pointing out that whatever increase they get is not worth the mental and emotional costs when they get out and that by stop-loss isn’t supporting the troops, it’s supporting a group of people with a terrible idea.
The military traditionally votes Republican. In one recent informal survey of the armed forces and their family members, 72% of respondents said they favored Bush over Democrat John Kerry. -m12
I see little difference between Bush and Kerry. As with your other post you make alot of misleading statements, much like Seixon would do in an effort to obfuscate the issue. Who voted for Kerry and who didn’t is a moot point as related to this debacle in Iraq or troop pay.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:53 amThe military traditionally votes Republican. In one recent informal survey of the armed forces and their family members, 72% of respondents said they favored Bush over Democrat John Kerry. Comment by m12 — May 16, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
Didn’t you know that *informal* is code for *unscientific*, otherwise known as *meaningless*?
You really should consult some of those other military polls on their attitudes about Iraq and Bush’s leadership. But then, if you were interested in the *truth*, you’d already know what those said.
http://www.cnn.com/ ELECTION/ 2004/ pages/ results/ states/ US/ P/ 00/ epolls.0.html
57% of those with military service voted for George W. Bush.
Comment by m12 — May 16, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
With Rush Limbaugh blasting 24/7, and military commanders preaching relentlessly to their troops that *libruls* are anti-military - that’s all they got 57%? With all of that propaganda, and that’s it?
Wow, you wingnuts suck at everything!
More and more have figured out why Liberal congressmen tend to get higher *scores* on their congressional votes lately though. If that election were held today, it would be so fun to see what the numbers would be… You’re such a loser m12(is that your age or IQ), grow up child.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:07 amOn Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on CNN that he was fed up with the Iraqi government and called it a “huge disappointment,†citing the parliament’s failure to pass an oil revenue bill, hold local elections or meet other benchmarks set by the U.S. Asked about a possible vote on a bill asking U.S. forces to leave, McConnell said: “I want to assure you, if they vote to ask us to leave, we’ll be glad to comply with their request.â€
Comment by JT8D-15A — May 16, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
So to Bush’s failures we can add the Iraqi puppet regime that can’t or won’t deliver an Oil Law and the prerequisite security to haul off the loot?
Or maybe the Iraqi regime knows that they are history when that law gets passed, and or the US troops leave?
Happened before to the British .
May 17th, 2007 at 2:19 amWith Rush Limbaugh blasting 24/7, and military commanders preaching relentlessly to their troops that *libruls* are anti-military - that’s all they got 57%? With all of that propaganda, and that’s it?
Here comes the ‘propaganda’ whining! WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
I think I trust our soldiers to decide who they want. A whopping 14% margin despite Keith Olbermann and company spamming the MSM with your rhetoric?
That’s got to leave a mark. Google up how the military voted in 1992, 1996, or 2000 if you want, but someone as blind as you usually doesn’t see the truth even if it slaps him in the face.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:22 amThe military traditionally votes Republican. In one recent informal survey of the armed forces and their family members, 72% of respondents said they favored Bush over Democrat John Kerry.
Please NOTE the DATE 2004
ThinkProgress has in fact posted the same poll for 2005 in which support for bush fell to 52%
I would strongly suspect that Bush approvel rating is probably slightly higher then the current civilian approvel rate.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:56 amIt appears that support for Bush among troops has changed a bit since 2004:
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
May 17th, 2007 at 8:31 amLets see if bush will veto a 3.5% pay hike for his troops. And how phoney is his claim to support the troops.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:51 amm12, the privates who actually do the fighting are losing money by serving their country. Their families are struggling without the income. You are cool with that?
Comment by JPark — May 16, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
You are aware that when the privates are deployed, they make more money than when they are in the states, right?
1) Tax free income for the time they are in a combat zone.
2) Hazardous Duty pay
3) Family separation pay (for those that are married)
4) Retained Commuted rations (for those that are married)
The average “Joe” is pocketing about $600 a month EXTRA when they are deployed.
I’d love to see m12 share his sentiments with some Marines, because if there is one thing I know for sure, m12 is a pussy.
Comment by VerbalKint — May 16, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
I am reading m12s statements and sorry to say, most of them are correct.
My housing allowance went down this year (as far as I can tell, they’ve lowered what they consider ‘adequate’ housing).
Comment by activeduty — May 17, 2007 @ 12:42 am
If you are active duty, then you know that your BAH (housing allowance) is based on the average monthly housing cost in you stations zip code. Therefore it can (and often does) fluctuate year by year and station to station.
You also know that one of the reasons it is hard to get appointments on base is because of the number of medical personnel that is forward deployed. But if you are active duty, this should not be much of an issue, go to your BAS (Battalion Aid Station) sick call for routine things.
Yep, pilots get most of the officer bonuses. The Marine Corps is currently giving a $10k bonus to ALL (E-1 through E-9) enlisted that re-enlist.
BUT I STILL THINK WE NEED THE PAY RAISE!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 17th, 2007 at 9:12 amfrom the link Rick provided:
When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll re spondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.
Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While ap proval of the president’s war lead ership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.
Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.
What say you m12?
May 17th, 2007 at 9:59 amAgreed, Bob. What M12 didn’t mention was that those re-up bonuses are for early career folks. for mid-level NCO’s there is no bonus, no incentive, ect. The DOD knows once you go over 10 yrs, they’ve got you by the short and curlies! Unless, of course, you are a linguist or a Air Traffic Controller. It’s still really tough on younger folks, especially those with families.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:00 amWhy do these f***ing GOP stooges always assume we’re in love with Clinton? I’ve lived through 7 presidents and been critical against all stupid, evil policies, but no-one has ever come close to Bush’s stupidity and evil.
You sound like goddamned five year old caught lying by his mother. “Suzie did it too.” Give me a f***ing break, and get a real argument for your posterboy’s criminal idiocy.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:02 am#76 Why do these f***ing GOP stooges always assume we’re in love with Clinton?
Because they LOVE Bush. Those authoritarian 28%’ers always love their daddy figures. Look how they still fawn over Reagan.
Disgusting.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:22 amKeep in mind that we are arguing about 3% vs. 3.5% or about $1300x.005=$6.50 per month for a private. The whole thing is ridiculous, why is the Administration balking at this.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pm#74
Let’s see who the military votes for in 2008, shall we?
May 17th, 2007 at 5:00 pmThis is an outrage.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:00 pm