Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Biden rejects military pay raises

Why is it ok to pay off student loans, while enlisted folks have to live in poverty?

House lawmakers said their 15% pay raise proposal was based on research conducted by a quality-of-life panel convened by the House Armed Services Committee in collaboration with the Defense Department. The panel said junior service members needed a sizable pay increase to keep up with a rising cost of living that can strain the budgets of troops making as little as $24,000 in basic pay. Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the Republican chairman of the committee, sharply criticized the White House for rejecting the proposal. “President Biden believes providing the men and women who serve in our armed forces with adequate compensation is too costly. This is offensive and wrong,” he said in a statement. “Too many military families are relying on food banks, [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], and the [Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children] in order to put food on the table. Republicans and Democrats on our committee agreed this is unacceptable.”

Read more at: https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2024-06-12/senate-enlisted-troops-pay-raise-house-14160394.html
Source - Stars and Stripes
carpediem · 61-69, M
Great post. So the military not only defends us, but they do so at a dramatically reduced pay rate. Then to make matters worst, their tax $$ are paying for the overpriced education of a group of unthankful and over-privileged kids. It's disgusting on so many levels. But that's how the left thinks. Screw the military, screw the working class.
carpediem · 61-69, M
@DogMan Their focus is on all that BS. I don't even want to know.
DogMan · 61-69, M
@carpediem Military.com | By Steve Beynon
Published June 28, 2021

Transgender soldiers can openly serve in the Army and the force will provide hormone theropy, mental health care and surgeries they might require, according to a force-wide memo issued out last week.

"This directive supersedes all previous guidance," Maj. Gen. Douglas Stitt, director of the Army G-1 Military Personnel Management Office, told reporters at a June 24 news conference. "The Army is open to all who can meet the standards. No otherwise qualified soldiers may be discharged or denied service, solely on the basis of gender identity.
@DogMan
I sometimes think that the left WANTS our military weak, and under staffed.

I believe that is exactly it! 😞
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
Biden's handlers made a cost-benefit analysis.

They figure they can buy more votes from politicized students than they can from down-to-earth military people.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@LeopoldBloom

1.
There are aggravating and mitigating factors in the calculation of those fines. The higher court disagreed with some of Engoron's decisions. This is why we have an appeal process.

Within weeks (which is lightning fast for a court proceeding) the higher court “disagreed” with 2/3 of the amount Engoron wanted to assess, making Engoron look like the fool or scoundrel (or both) that he is.

The amount of the fine is secondary to the fact that Trump was found liable for misleading the banks and getting loans he wasn't entitled to.

Oh, yes, Leo… those poor, naïve, babe-in-the-woods banks were so misled that they didn’t even file a complaint. They had to have James and Engoron explain to them how Trump took advantage of them. 🙄

2.
I don't know, why don't you ask him [Bragg]? People who occupy buildings aren't always prosecuted
.

With Bragg, it seems the people he wants to protect are the ones not prosecuted, not requiring bail if arrested, etc. In the Columbia case, police and Jewish leaders were outraged at his inaction.

“The dismissals quickly drew fury from rank-and-file NYPD officers, higher education officials and Jewish leaders who spoke with The Post.”
“This is turnstile justice,” said Michael Nussbaum, a 25-year member of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York. “This a green light for chaos, a green light for destroying property.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/outrage-as-manhattan-da-bragg-s-office-drops-nearly-all-cases-from-columbia-university-s-anti-israel-protest/ar-BB1oBDB4

I gave you this link earlier. For someone who affects to prefer articles over videos, Leo, you have a remarkable penchant for not reading them.

3.
No, I don't think so. Do you think holdouts are always "intimidated" by the other jurors in every case?

I didn’t say EVERY case, Leo. I said THIS case, given the venue, the prosecutor and the biased judge.

One juror even quit because pro-Trumpers doxxed her. As usual, you're mad at the wrong people.

Oh, right, I forgot… only right-wingers dox. 🙄🙄

https://thecrimereport.org/2023/12/01/new-washington-state-anti-doxxing-law-raises-concerns-among-left-wing-activists/

4.
I don't know, why don't you ask him? Maybe Weiss realized that since hardly anyone is prosecuted for the crime Hunter was accused of, it was unfair to hold him to a different standard just because of who his father is.

Wrong, as usual. The gun charge was the least of what Weiss should have charged Hunter with. He proceeded with that (minimal) charge only because the sweetheart deal he offered fell through when the judge didn’t follow the script Weiss was hoping for.

Here, read about it. Even Vox got it right. Try reading the article, for a change. 🙄🙄🙄

https://www.vox.com/2023/8/17/23828938/hunter-biden-plea-deal-special-counsel-weiss

If he'd been Hunter Smith, this would never have gone to trial.

Wrong yet again. Hunter Smith would have faced much more serious charges.
@Thinkerbell Yep, they want to keep the window open to tie Joe Biden to his son's business activities. There's just gotta be something there.
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@LeopoldBloom

No! Really? 😳

But, but... old Joe said he NEVER discussed Hunter's "business" activities with Hunter.
Even when the Big Guy was right there in the room when smart Hunter was shaking down one of his "business" clients over the phone.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
Just to provide a little context, for which I probably will be roasted.

1. This is for "junior service" personnel for whom housing, all meals, total health care -- the biggest budget item for many these days -- already is part of the compensation package, and for whom discounted merchandize is available at PX's and BX's. Pay is not the only compensation they are receiving. It is a totally volunteer military these days. They chose it for a wide variety of reasons, but frequently as a free education/training in skills that they can transfer to the business world for high paying jobs.

2. Student loan programs were voluntary as well. What is different, imho, is the fact that many were drawn into the student loan programs through fraudulent promises by mostly for-profit educational and training institutions; the loans came from the same scamming financial institutions that brought you the great housing collapse of a few years ago, and when the recipients could begin paying off the loans those banks leaned on the Federal Dept. of Education which had guaranteed the loans, the Department of Education spun the debt off to cut throat debt recovery institutions with exorbitant interest fees and low payment schedules that amount to life-time servitude. The most fraudulent of these programs have already been prosecuted and closed across the country. Efforts to provide some level of loan forgiveness to the rest of those most maligned is, in part, in recognition that the Federal Government including Congress were integral in creating this failed system.

Do service personnel service deserve some level of pay increase? Probably, imho, having been there as a junior serviceman, and NOT by choice.. The issue appears to be what is a realistic level that can be afforded.

Is some level of student loan forgiveness warranted? Yes, imho, having had to fight for a "mentally challenged" ward who should never have been recruited into a bogus training program by a now closed predatory for-profit training program with promises of guaranteed employment that was never going to happen.

Comparing the two situations is an apple and oranges argument.
@DogMan Exactly
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@DogMan Thank you for a reasonable response. I see your point as well. Although I do volunteer work supporting an organization that tries to provide "affordable" room & board to college students at my alma mater who couldn't otherwise afford to go to a four college -- just as it did for me and thousands of other poor kids back in my day -- and you might be surprised by the number of college students who don't come from wealthy families. But as far as generalizations go, I think you are right.

Both are issues that need to be addressed. My concern is that pitting one against the other serves no purpose other than to feed the bumpersticker crowd. And as I understand it, neither Biden nor the Senate have vetoed a pay raise for the military -- only the extreme 19% hike that the House passed just to create a political issue. And as I understand it, the student loan program -- a chaotic mess that Congress created for the benefit of the financial institutions -- is not universal, but is an attempt to help those in death spiral debt that will never allow them to be productive taxpayers (to be absolutely crass), or were lied to by predators, and recipients will have some level of economic need to qualify to leave out the wealthy.
DogMan · 61-69, M
@dancingtongue Agreed, Although I believe paying off someone's personal debt, with
tax payer money, is wrong. Yes, I know we bailed out big business, but I was against that
also.

You watch, in the near future, people will be demanding that the tax payers,
pay off ALL student debt.

It will be paid by two different people, the people that paid off their own student debt,
and the people that did not go to college.

Now that it has started, It will never stop. After all, it won't be fair for others that
went to college. People will start go into college, expecting it to be paid by others.

We both know human nature.
Torsten · 36-40, M
they trying to buy votes from the younger generations. Seems they would rather help out most others including illegal immigrants over helping out those who fight for the country. Its messed up and really doesnt give much motivation to enlist i would imagine
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@Torsten Did the Republicans propose a bill to fund housing for homeless vets that the Democrats blocked?

I blame the Republicans for their abject capitulation to Trump and putting grandstanding over accomplishing anything.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Northwest · M
Biden rejects military pay raises

Let's see how this could be translated into English.

There are two bills under consideration.

The House is proposing a 19.5% raise for junior enlisted personnel.

The Senate is proposing a 5.5% raise for junior enlisted personnel.

The White House Budget Office, which is responsible for doing a sanity check, which is what they're supposed to do, indicated that the 19.5% raise, will blow the budget, so it this needs to be done, the budget needs to be raised.

So, someone saw "White House" in a sentence, and translate it into Biden rejects military pay raises, but if someone goes to the URL that accompanied the post that started the thread, they will realize that the claim Biden rejects military pay raises is not the proper English translation of that article.
DogMan · 61-69, M
@Northwest The Whitehouse/Executive branch, spoke out against the pay raise.

Who is the leader of the Executive branch?

Doing easy math 5.5% for someone making 26,000 a year is a raise of 119.00 per month,

Minimum wage workers in California make over 40,000 per year working at McDonalds.

Many of these troops have more responsibility before they turn 20, than many people
have in their entire lives.

At 19 years old, I was signing off inspections and repair on multi-million dollar
fighter jets in the USAF. I brought home 280.00 per month.
Northwest · M
@DogMan

The Whitehouse/Executive branch, spoke out against the pay raise.

I don't know what the "Whitehouse/Executive branch" is.

I deal with facts, not modified sounds bites.

We must have an NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), as we've done for the past 63 years.

In the meanwhile, the House, and as a reaction, the Senate, went off on their one. One proposing 19.5% as an election year prop, and the other proposing 5.5%.

Meanwhile, the administration wants a comprehensive look at the issues, and successfully enacting NDAA.

The White House budget office, yesterday, said that the 19.5% figure is not going to fit within the budget, so the latter needs to be addressed.

The White House press office, chimed in with some boilerplate language, specifically "strongly supports enactment of a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for a 64th consecutive year", which does not say much. More importantly, it does not say what your thread title suggests.

But let's go with your politics, aka Biden hates the military, instead of the truth.
Remember, BinBiden has a responsibility to pay his blackmail hush money to Zalinsky.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
DogMan · 61-69, M
@Thinkerbell You are quite the poet Tinker.
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@DogMan

Thank you. 🤭
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment

 
Post Comment