NationStates Jolt Archive

Come on, Bush apologists--you've got to explain this one to me. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/)
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
The bill passed the House 397-27, so its obviously a popular bill, and I really don't see a political upside to opposing it. It's like threatening to veto the "I love kitties and rainbows" Act of 2007 or something. Higher soldier pay, price controls for prescriptions--what's not to support here?

I suspect it's the principle of the thing. It's a Democrat-controlled House, and Bush can't be seen as approving anything it does. I find a veto reprehensible unless there was something in the bill related to troop withdrawals or anything else Bush has already gone on record as being veto-worthy.

Come on, Bush apologists--you've got to explain this one to me. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/)

The bill passed the House 397-27, so its obviously a popular bill, and I really don't see a political upside to opposing it. It's like threatening to veto the "I love kitties and rainbows" Act of 2007 or something. Higher soldier pay, price controls for prescriptions--what's not to support here?

This is just as stupid as giving a fast track to citizenship for illegal immigrations.

And TRICARE affects my parents personally

:upyours: Bush

Come on, Bush apologists--you've got to explain this one to me. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/)

The bill passed the House 397-27, so its obviously a popular bill, and I really don't see a political upside to opposing it. It's like threatening to veto the "I love kitties and rainbows" Act of 2007 or something. Higher soldier pay, price controls for prescriptions--what's not to support here?

I'll stand with him on opposing price controls. TRICARE is a deductible/co-pay based system like many private plans. Price controls only guarantee scarcity. The VA/DoD has the advantage of volume and can use that as leverage to get decent pricing. I know, I do it every day.

The rest looks like nonsense. I didn't go any deeper than the blog you pointed to, but it still looks silly to say troops don't need raises and survivors don't either.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110Y6QPnI::

In case people want to read through this morass.

we dont have the money to pay 3.5% more to the troops or $40/month to widows! dont you remember the guy on the daily show who said we are paying mercenary troops in iraq $30k/month? that money doesnt grow on trees you know.

we dont have the money to pay 3.5% more to the troops or $40/month to widows! dont you remember the guy on the daily show who said we are paying mercenary troops in iraq $30k/month? that money doesnt grow on trees you know.

And the military gets paid shit and now he wants to veto a pay increase that will help many families that have children.

And the military gets paid shit and now he wants to veto a pay increase that will help many families that have children.

george bush, great president or the greatest president?

are we all counting the days he has left in office?

And the military gets paid shit and now he wants to veto a pay increase that will help many families that have children.
In all fairness, it's not way out of line and the military doesn't get paid in shit anymore. The goal was to close a 4 % gap in equivalent pay between military and civilian sectors.

We made a good living when I was on active duty. I got about $60K per year as a senior Captain/new Major with all the benefits and allowances. When I retired, I was a Lieutenant Colonel (reserves) and by today's pay charts, I'd be making about $92-95K per year.

In all fairness, it's not way out of line and the military doesn't get paid in shit anymore. The goal was to close a 4 % gap in equivalent pay between military and civilian sectors.

We made a good living when I was on active duty. I got about $60K per year as a senior Captain/new Major with all the benefits and allowances. When I retired, I was a Lieutenant Colonel (reserves) and by today's pay charts, I'd be making about $92-95K per year.

Yes I know how much you would be making. My father was an LTC in the USAFR. Do not have to tell me that. But the point remains that he wants to veto an entire bill that is full of things we need to defend ourselves with and that has got to be opposed.

:upyours: Bush

Prepare for a veto override if you do veto this.

It seems they shouldn't have a problem getting the 2/3 majority to override a veto.. That is how it works, isn't it?

We made a good living when I was on active duty. I got about $60K per year as a senior Captain/new Major with all the benefits and allowances. When I retired, I was a Lieutenant Colonel (reserves) and by today's pay charts, I'd be making about $92-95K per year.

I really shouldn't have to tell you that most soldiers are not that high ranking and thus do not get paid that much.

I really shouldn't have to tell you that most soldiers are not that high ranking and thus do not get paid that much.

And I shouldn't have to tell you that there is an effective pay scale that relates experience and seniority to salary in almost every field of employment. The base pay and allowances for a junior enlisted man amounts to about something over $21,000 -- right around $1800 per month. That's not bad for any 18 or 19 year old. Better than minimum wage, by a long shot.

And we're still talking about a 4% gap that the raises were supposed to close. That means an equivalently senior civilian counterpart to our E3 would be making about $840 a year more than the military man.

Yes I know how much you would be making. My father was an LTC in the USAFR. Do not have to tell me that. But the point remains that he wants to veto an entire bill that is full of things we need to defend ourselves with and that has got to be opposed.

It is kind of odd to single out a couple smallish items in a big bill like this. Of all the things that would have been appropriate to veto, this really isn't one of them.

Bush: Hehe, I'm leavin' office in a year, what can I do to make even my most loyal constituents think I'm a dick.
Lackey: Mr President, there is a bill coming up to increase troop pay.
Bush: Ex-cellent.

It is kind of odd to single out a couple smallish items in a big bill like this. Of all the things that would have been appropriate to veto, this really isn't one of them.

You are most right about that.

It is kind of odd to single out a couple smallish items in a big bill like this. Of all the things that would have been appropriate to veto, this really isn't one of them.

I agree, which is why I posed the question. Bush, after all, is the one who pointed out those specific things out, as though he was deliberately telling the troops "fuck you guys--you make enough money." The conspiracy theorist in me would say that he's trying to keep the Army from reaching its reduced recruiting goals so he can justify paying companies like Blackwater more money for private armies, but that would just be crazy talk. Right?

I agree, which is why I posed the question. Bush, after all, is the one who pointed out those specific things out, as though he was deliberately telling the troops "fuck you guys--you make enough money." The conspiracy theorist in me would say that he's trying to keep the Army from reaching its reduced recruiting goals so he can justify paying companies like Blackwater more money for private armies, but that would just be crazy talk. Right?

Oh... fuck.

This life needs a larger warning label.

Come on, Bush apologists--you've got to explain this one to me. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/)

The bill passed the House 397-27, so its obviously a popular bill, and I really don't see a political upside to opposing it. It's like threatening to veto the "I love kitties and rainbows" Act of 2007 or something. Higher soldier pay, price controls for prescriptions--what's not to support here?

I disagree with price controls for prescriptions, but that's because I'm generally against any type of government intervention in a free-market society.

That said I think Bush is being a complete fool to veto this, even with the price controls. Our troops put their lives on the line for next to nothing and they don't even complain about it. The only logical reason I can give him for vetoing it is something hidden in the bill that warrents a veto.

I disagree with price controls for prescriptions, but that's because I'm generally against any type of government intervention in a free-market society.

That said I think Bush is being a complete fool to veto this, even with the price controls. Our troops put their lives on the line for next to nothing and they don't even complain about it. The only logical reason I can give him for vetoing it is something hidden in the bill that warrents a veto.

you would think if there was something "hidden in the bill" bush would be screaming about how the dems were trying to sneak things in on a troop pay raise.

I disagree with price controls for prescriptions, but that's because I'm generally against any type of government intervention in a free-market society.

That said I think Bush is being a complete fool to veto this, even with the price controls. Our troops put their lives on the line for next to nothing and they don't even complain about it. The only logical reason I can give him for vetoing it is something hidden in the bill that warrents a veto.

I provided a link to the whole bill somwhere here. And yes, the military does complain about the pay.

Does Blackwater hire only ex-military or do mercenary groups like that also do fresh out of high school? Seriously wondering. Why would a guy want to join the Army if that were the case?

I agree, which is why I posed the question. Bush, after all, is the one who pointed out those specific things out, as though he was deliberately telling the troops "fuck you guys--you make enough money." The conspiracy theorist in me would say that he's trying to keep the Army from reaching its reduced recruiting goals so he can justify paying companies like Blackwater more money for private armies, but that would just be crazy talk. Right?

Maybe he has another tax cut planned?

I agree, which is why I posed the question. Bush, after all, is the one who pointed out those specific things out, as though he was deliberately telling the troops "fuck you guys--you make enough money." The conspiracy theorist in me would say that he's trying to keep the Army from reaching its reduced recruiting goals so he can justify paying companies like Blackwater more money for private armies, but that would just be crazy talk. Right?
Maybe there is more to this story...

From CQ (http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002513742.html)

Facing a presidential veto threat, House lawmakers Wednesday rejected an amendment to the fiscal 2008 defense authorization that would have blocked the use of war funds for contingency planning against Iran.

The Bush administration threatened to veto the bill (HR 1585) over several provisions already in the bill that would grant collective bargaining and appeal rights to Pentagon employees and impose “Buy American” policies.

Not mentioned in the blog, of course, it makes me wonder if the anti-military stuff aren't just outright lies.

Maybe there is more to this story...

From CQ (http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002513742.html)

Not mentioned in the blog, of course, it makes me wonder if the anti-military stuff aren't just outright lies.

Here is it (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr1585sap-h.pdf) from the White House. It's a .pdf, but it's in there.

Edit: I'd like to add that vetoing a defense spending bill over collective bargaining and buying American inside the Pentagon is pretty fucking stupid as well.

This is stupid.

Here is it (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr1585sap-h.pdf) from the White House. It's a .pdf, but it's in there.
It sure is. It's just as stupid as that blog made it look. Except for the Seal and the letterhead, of course. That makes it look Presidentially stupid.


I really did like my idea better. Do you suppose some dirty tricks guy put this on the White House web site to make the President look bad?

I could be on board with the opposition to collective bargaining, but the Buy American opposition does elude me...I'm back to preferring my alternate idea.

Support the troops my ass.

I'll stand with him on opposing price controls. TRICARE is a deductible/co-pay based system like many private plans. Price controls only guarantee scarcity. The VA/DoD has the advantage of volume and can use that as leverage to get decent pricing. I know, I do it every day.

The rest looks like nonsense. I didn't go any deeper than the blog you pointed to, but it still looks silly to say troops don't need raises and survivors don't either.

That sounds frighteningly reasonable.
Just out of curiosity: do veterans get some form of government pension basd on years of service? Or is it "You're out of the military, so long, nice knowing you"?

That sounds frighteningly reasonable.
Just out of curiosity: do veterans get some form of government pension basd on years of service? Or is it "You're out of the military, so long, nice knowing you"?
It's half pay after twenty years and three quarters pay after 30. Paid immediately after you retire from active duty, deferred to age 60 if you retire from the reserves.

Does Blackwater hire only ex-military or do mercenary groups like that also do fresh out of high school? Seriously wondering. Why would a guy want to join the Army if that were the case?

Don't quote me, as I'm not exactly well read on the subject, but I remember hearing that Blackwater only hired people with experience. Which makes sense if you're a defense contractor (read: mercenary organization), since your pay tends to depend on the quality of the services you provide.

It's half pay after twenty years and three quarters pay after 30. Paid immediately after you retire from active duty, deferred to age 60 if you retire from the reserves.

That doesn't sound too bad as a supplemental income, though I have no idea what sort of salary you'd be pulling from it.

Bush is making things real easy for this successor!

To lose that is!

This is just as stupid as giving a fast track to citizenship for illegal immigrations.

And TRICARE affects my parents personally

:upyours: Bush

Didn't you know? Bush's "support the troops" movement has all the trappings of a prison army unit. They're supported alright, while their fighting and dying. But once they come back, they get swept under the dustbin.

That doesn't sound too bad as a supplemental income, though I have no idea what sort of salary you'd be pulling from it.
It's okay. I'm looking forward to my 60th. One has to put up with a lot to get there. Lots of sacrifices of separation, mainly.

Maybe he has another tax cut planned?

I think his current goal is to make his last tax cuts permanent, as some of them are about to expire.

In all fairness, it's not way out of line and the military doesn't get paid in shit anymore. The goal was to close a 4 % gap in equivalent pay between military and civilian sectors.

We made a good living when I was on active duty. I got about $60K per year as a senior Captain/new Major with all the benefits and allowances. When I retired, I was a Lieutenant Colonel (reserves) and by today's pay charts, I'd be making about $92-95K per year.

Wow! Bush doing shitting things just because he's evil doesn't surprise me. But someone defending Bush to Corneliu? I can hardly believe it.

Seriously. I had to go back and check that the quote was accurate.

Didn't you know? Bush's "support the troops" movement has all the trappings of a prison army unit. They're supported alright, while their fighting and dying. But once they come back, they get swept under the dustbin.

Like his concern for children. They're the most important thing on the planet, until they come out of the uterus.

Come on, Bush apologists--you've got to explain this one to me. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/bush-military-veto/)

The bill passed the House 397-27, so its obviously a popular bill, and I really don't see a political upside to opposing it. It's like threatening to veto the "I love kitties and rainbows" Act of 2007 or something. Higher soldier pay, price controls for prescriptions--what's not to support here?

We've got a spoiled brat for a president. He's been throwing a particularly epic tantrum ever since his pet Do Nothing Congress was put to sleep. He's doing what spoiled brats do best: smashing anything of value that he can get his sticky little hands on.

I don't throw around the word "traitor," but at this point I think it is a demonstrable fact that any person who supports George W Bush clearly wants to see Americans suffer.

Wow! Bush doing shitting things just because he's evil doesn't surprise me. But someone defending Bush to Corneliu? I can hardly believe it.

Seriously. I had to go back and check that the quote was accurate.
Clearly you have some work to do in reading comprehension before you take your SATs.

Like his concern for children. They're the most important thing on the planet, until they come out of the uterus.
He does have a good point - if they never came out, there'd be a lot less problems in the world

I disagree with price controls for prescriptions, but that's because I'm generally against any type of government intervention in a free-market society.

That said I think Bush is being a complete fool to veto this, even with the price controls. Our troops put their lives on the line for next to nothing and they don't even complain about it. The only logical reason I can give him for vetoing it is something hidden in the bill that warrents a veto.

This is neither here nor there, but if you think that drug companies are operating a free market, you are smoking some crazy stuff, and I may need some.

That said...

Wow...

There is no amount of words that can describe this idiocy. I may need to make a new word for it...

Idiobushiotic?

I provided a link to the whole bill somwhere here. And yes, the military does complain about the pay.

You would figure with this getting shot down, that the liberal media (yes I believe the mass majority of TV/Newspapers are liberal) would make it known that they are disgruntled in an effort to further damage whatever's left Bush has going for him.

And I meant they don't complain loud enough for people to take notice. Though I suppose that's because they are in the military and aren't allowed to? Almost everyone complains about their pay however.

And I skimmed through the article really fast so I probably missed that link.

This is neither here nor there, but if you think that drug companies are operating a free market, you are smoking some crazy stuff, and I may need some.

That said...

Wow...

There is no amount of words that can describe this idiocy. I may need to make a new word for it...

Idiobushiotic?

I never said they were. In a free-market society, government doesn't control anything for anyone. That includes controling prices for prescriptions, but thank you for showing the rest of us what idiocy you have as your post lacks any substance other than one large Ad Hominem.

It's okay. I'm looking forward to my 60th. One has to put up with a lot to get there. Lots of sacrifices of separation, mainly.

Sacrifices of separation? I'm afraid I don't understand.

Though with the average salary of a physics prof, I'd imagine the pay from your army pension has to be a sweet bonus.

I never said they were. In a free-market society, government doesn't control anything for anyone. That includes controling prices for prescriptions, but thank you for showing the rest of us what idiocy you have as your post lacks any substance other than one large Ad Hominem.

Thank you. I try so very hard to lack substance.

Anywho... pretty much everything that needed saying in this topic had be said. I was merely just pointing out my sentiments on the issue, is all. Really, there is nothing that I can say that could really add anything, as there just doesn't seem to be much of a debate over this.

As well, if you think I was calling you an idiot in the last part of my post, that was not the intent. I structured it poorly. I was calling Bush an idiot. Which is a given. So I guess it didn't need to be said. Which means my posts has less substance than before.

Is it possible to go into negative substance?

Thank you. I try so very hard to lack substance.

Anywho... pretty much everything that needed saying in this topic had be said. I was merely just pointing out my sentiments on the issue, is all. Really, there is nothing that I can say that could really add anything, as there just doesn't seem to be much of a debate over this.

As well, if you think I was calling you an idiot in the last part of my post, that was not the intent. I structured it poorly. I was calling Bush an idiot. Which is a given. So I guess it didn't need to be said. Which means my posts has less substance than before.

Is it possible to go into negative substance?

I agree that pretty much everything has been said.

It seemed to me you were attacking me and my post and I'll admit I got a bit defensive so I apoligize to you as well. I also agree that Bush is an idiot. In my post I wasn't trying to defend him.

I agree that pretty much everything has been said.

It seemed to me you were attacking me and my post and I'll admit I got a bit defensive so I apoligize to you as well. I also agree that Bush is an idiot. In my post I wasn't trying to defend him.

I should be the one to apologize here. Poor wording and phrasing on my part.

I should be the one to apologize here. Poor wording and phrasing on my part.

Then all is forgiven :D

Group Hug!

We've got a spoiled brat for a president. He's been throwing a particularly epic tantrum ever since his pet Do Nothing Congress was put to sleep. He's doing what spoiled brats do best: smashing anything of value that he can get his sticky little hands on.

I don't throw around the word "traitor," but at this point I think it is a demonstrable fact that any person who supports George W Bush clearly wants to see Americans suffer.

I think that for the around 30% of Americans who still support him, the lizard brain has kicked in and they refuse to accept anything else. They just don't see anything outside the reality they've created for themselves.

People are stubborn and don't often like to admit they are/were wrong.

I never said they were. In a free-market society, government doesn't control anything for anyone. That includes controling prices for prescriptions, but thank you for showing the rest of us what idiocy you have as your post lacks any substance other than one large Ad Hominem.

His "idiocy" was pointing out that we don't have a free market here in America, therefore your complaint was bunk.