newfangle
hates you.
Why can't he just increase both levels of funding, and get rid of useless crap, like welfare?
Should Kerry reraise soldier pay when he becomes President?
- Thread starter stratego
- Start date
stratego
Trying to be good.
The way I see it, a 1950's bullet feels the same when it goes through your body as a 2004 bullet. If we're to upgrade anything it should be armor, but I don't see why we need a new model of assault rifle or a new helicopter every other year. Channelling some of that funding back to the soldiers would at least show some appreciation towards them.
stratego
Trying to be good.
ybbor said:
I hope he would, but seeing how he has cut veteran benefit in exchange for weapons upgrade, I doubt he'll do the reverse now.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
The voters that would like that will mostly vote GOP in any case.newfangle said:
PHSikes
Retired Squid
As an Active (almost Retired) US Military member, pay should never be cut, There is always some money around in the Government for 'Pork Barrel' projects. The plan right now as I understand it is to match pay raises with the inflation rate. As an E-6 (Petty Officer First Class) with 20 years in the Navy I make about $31,000, on Sea Duty about $36624 a year, plus a Housing Allowance. The bad thing about this is where the Military puts you ...places like San Diego, CA (expensive), Pearl Harbor, HI (expensive), Norfolk ,VA. (you guessed it, expensive). Add in time away from home, missing childs birth, missing family /friends birthdays
/funerals /holidays. A lot more money would be nice, but not at the expense of having to work with 1960's technology. But, Hey! I volunteered for this job and it wasn't to get rich doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sobieski II
America has a mercenary army. A rather patriotic one, but a merc army none the less. The thing about mercs is that they don't work for free.
From Websters: Mercenary: (Adj) Working just for money (Noun) A soldier who fights for any country that will pay him.
If I was a mercenary, I would be getting paid a lot more! Who would do this job just for THAT pay??
/funerals /holidays. A lot more money would be nice, but not at the expense of having to work with 1960's technology. But, Hey! I volunteered for this job and it wasn't to get rich doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sobieski II
America has a mercenary army. A rather patriotic one, but a merc army none the less. The thing about mercs is that they don't work for free.
From Websters: Mercenary: (Adj) Working just for money (Noun) A soldier who fights for any country that will pay him.
If I was a mercenary, I would be getting paid a lot more! Who would do this job just for THAT pay??
andrewgprv
Second Class Citizen
Though I am generally for a decreased military budget I am all for higher solder pay.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
PHSikes said:
Considering the number of people being recruited based on college aid, or just to have a job, I would say they are becoming more mercenary-like, and good point, why should they do a job just for that pay? And that is what the soldiers themselves are asking, which is why the forces are having a hard time retaining skilled junior officers after Iraq.
Edit: See below post as well
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
The Last Conformist said:
I am aware that my description is not completely accurate, but I said it to make a point. Unlike Israel, their is nothing forcing the Americans to serve. In that situation, if you don't treat them well, they will leave. Just like mercenaries.
It is the trade-off of an all-regular army.
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
Even volunteers get paid. You're making no distinction between all regular armies and mercenary armies. State controlled armies are different from mercs.
yaroslav
Emperor
Benderino, I'm sorry but I disagree. To quote an example I know somewhat well, the Spanish Army at our best (military speaking) time was partially mercenary, even when it was state-controlled. I don't know the official definition of mercenary, but for me it's clear that mercernary armies, even if state controlled, are those whose members stay in the "job" for the money (something I think it's not the case of the US' army).
NateDawgNY
Just Chillin'
Exactly. Very little of American R&D actually goes towards soldier welfare, which is really a shame. Soldiers are more inclined to stay on if they feel that they're being taken care of. I will say this: I was definitely not a mercenary. Mercenaries are essentialy civilians. They can come and go as they please and get paid for what they do. If you're wearing a uniform, you can't come and go as you please, and they paycheck is peanuts compared to the civilian sector.
@Sh3kel
Out of curiosity, what's the average salary (in dollars) in Israel?
One other question, what's the average cost of living over there?
No
if peoplehavent learned the lesson that the Roman empire learned the hard way- equip[ment and technology first, soldire payment alter, then we of the current time are doomed to the same fate as glorious Rome- having to rely first on mercenaries (in modern times military contractors,. on which in RL the US military is being forced to becoem more dependent on, with them fulfilling an auxilla like role in the military) an eventual disbanding of our own military, and then the collapse of the mercenary system- happens every time a mercenary system becomes dominant in a nations military, mostlly due to citizens no longer iwllign to recruit intot he armed forces- now some may argue that if naything,t hat is a reaosn to increase soldires pay, but IMO, it is fa rmore valubel to show that being a soldire is not nearlly the risk it is made out to be by ensureing the safty and general longevity of the troops, as well as incresing thier pay, if thier proove to be enough excess funds to cover weapon development, and other government needs to do so.
if peoplehavent learned the lesson that the Roman empire learned the hard way- equip[ment and technology first, soldire payment alter, then we of the current time are doomed to the same fate as glorious Rome- having to rely first on mercenaries (in modern times military contractors,. on which in RL the US military is being forced to becoem more dependent on, with them fulfilling an auxilla like role in the military) an eventual disbanding of our own military, and then the collapse of the mercenary system- happens every time a mercenary system becomes dominant in a nations military, mostlly due to citizens no longer iwllign to recruit intot he armed forces- now some may argue that if naything,t hat is a reaosn to increase soldires pay, but IMO, it is fa rmore valubel to show that being a soldire is not nearlly the risk it is made out to be by ensureing the safty and general longevity of the troops, as well as incresing thier pay, if thier proove to be enough excess funds to cover weapon development, and other government needs to do so.
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
yaroslav said:
I agree that the US army is not mercenary. I'm a little confused as to what we are even discussing here. All state run armies get paid, correct (that's how it always has been)?
yaroslav
Emperor
Sorry, I know I'm sometimes (or ever) obscure, and my bad english doesn't help a little. I was trying to say that I respectfully disagree with this sentece of your post:
in the sense that I believed that there have been state run armies that, as they fought mainly for money rather than any other thing, that could be classified as "mercenary" armies.
BTW: Bring back your old signature, please
in the sense that I believed that there have been state run armies that, as they fought mainly for money rather than any other thing, that could be classified as "mercenary" armies.
BTW: Bring back your old signature, please
Uncle Sam
Educated Redneck
First, the candidates are like 50/50, what on God's green earth makes you say "when Kerry wins?"
Second, while it's unfortunate about our soldiers pay, making sure they're equipped with the latest technology and equipment is more important than giving them more money. They can't use money when they're dead because their weapons/armor are crap.
Second, while it's unfortunate about our soldiers pay, making sure they're equipped with the latest technology and equipment is more important than giving them more money. They can't use money when they're dead because their weapons/armor are crap.
ybbor
Will not change his avata
i bet the reason you started with "when Kerry wins" was to see how long a thread could go while staying on topic, well i for one will not fall for that! *some guy whispers in my ear 'you just did'* oh.
well, i'm for increasing soldier pay, i had no idea how little they were paid. i mean, we spend a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) [IIRC] on a single Modern Armour (just because this is off topic doesn't mean it's not civ
) why not build two or three less of them and rasie soldier pay
well, i'm for increasing soldier pay, i had no idea how little they were paid. i mean, we spend a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) [IIRC] on a single Modern Armour (just because this is off topic doesn't mean it's not civ
) why not build two or three less of them and rasie soldier payybbor said:i bet the reason you started with "when Kerry wins" was to see how long a thread could go while staying on topic, well i for one will not fall for that! *some guy whispers in my ear 'you just did'* oh.
well, i'm for increasing soldier pay, i had no idea how little they were paid. i mean, we spend a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) [IIRC] on a single Modern Armour (just because this is off topic doesn't mean it's not civ
because even in modern times, numbers still count for a great deal- sure an M1 A1 can defeat 5 tanks of just about any other power on earth, but what happens when they send in 6 tanks to ever one of ours? (perahps save the brits and germans, they both have some very stunnign peicesof Armour, though in compariosn its still rather second class, though ti should eb noted some british tanks have a faster rate of fire, no tank has the accuracy of Abrams)
To a question asked earlier (King PJ): That pay chart is based on monthly pay, before taxes. Most people are enlisted, and will be in the pay grades E1 - E7. (E8 & E9 are mandated by law to comprise no more than 3% of the enlisted force.) The large bulk will probably be between E3 and E5. The columns of that top chart are the total years of service the member has.
For instance, when I retired, I was an E7, being paid over 22 years of service. By that chart, I was making $3,200.40 per month. (Of course, that chart is 2 years old - there have been a couple of pay raises since. )
Another point to remember: The various allowances on top of base pay are NOT taxed. So they are effectively worth more than the dollar amount shown on the table.
Many studies have been done over the years, which show that since Reagan, the total average pay that a military member receives is roughly equivalent to the average pay of a person of that age and seniority in the civilian world. Actually, the ones who are most behind the curve are the senior enlisted and field-grade (mid-level) officers.
Nobody enlists in the US military to get rich. They might be stupid enough to think that they can skate through their 8 years without ever having to face anything worse than Basic Training, and latch onto the idea that it's a great way to pay for college, but I hope most soldiers aren't that stupid. (They weren't, on average, while I was still in.) And yes, I deliberately said eight years. When you sign on that dotted line, you are volunteering for 8 years. Yes, only 3 - 6 are officially "Active", but the remainder are still there, and are normally served out in the Reserves or the Guard. And since the Reserves and Guard are being called on more and moer these days ....
Anyway, my point is that people don't enlist for the money. They do it for many other reasons: pride, patriotism, a desire to "give something back", whatever. All most really ask is a decent wage in return for their service. The current pay scale is "adequate" for that. Not "good", not as much as everyone wants, but generally "adequate".
Like many posters have said before me, R&D is essential for the military. I wouldn't touch a dime of that money just for a pay raise. That would simply be a "feel good" solution. Wars aren't won just because I "feel good".
For instance, when I retired, I was an E7, being paid over 22 years of service. By that chart, I was making $3,200.40 per month. (Of course, that chart is 2 years old - there have been a couple of pay raises since.
)Another point to remember: The various allowances on top of base pay are NOT taxed. So they are effectively worth more than the dollar amount shown on the table.
Many studies have been done over the years, which show that since Reagan, the total average pay that a military member receives is roughly equivalent to the average pay of a person of that age and seniority in the civilian world. Actually, the ones who are most behind the curve are the senior enlisted and field-grade (mid-level) officers.
Nobody enlists in the US military to get rich. They might be stupid enough to think that they can skate through their 8 years without ever having to face anything worse than Basic Training, and latch onto the idea that it's a great way to pay for college, but I hope most soldiers aren't that stupid. (They weren't, on average, while I was still in.) And yes, I deliberately said eight years. When you sign on that dotted line, you are volunteering for 8 years. Yes, only 3 - 6 are officially "Active", but the remainder are still there, and are normally served out in the Reserves or the Guard. And since the Reserves and Guard are being called on more and moer these days ....
Anyway, my point is that people don't enlist for the money. They do it for many other reasons: pride, patriotism, a desire to "give something back", whatever. All most really ask is a decent wage in return for their service. The current pay scale is "adequate" for that. Not "good", not as much as everyone wants, but generally "adequate".
Like many posters have said before me, R&D is essential for the military. I wouldn't touch a dime of that money just for a pay raise. That would simply be a "feel good" solution. Wars aren't won just because I "feel good".
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
yaroslav said:Sorry, I know I'm sometimes (or ever) obscure, and my bad english doesn't help a little. I was trying to say that I respectfully disagree with this sentece of your post:
in the sense that I believed that there have been state run armies that, as they fought mainly for money rather than any other thing, that could be classified as "mercenary" armies.
BTW: Bring back your old signature, please
I see. Oh, BTW to you, which signature would that be? I'll bring it back
yaroslav
Emperor
The last one I saw you was one in hebrew
Similar threads
- Poll
