quote: Many Army National Guard soldiers called up to serve in Afghanistan and Iraq have found themselves fighting the Defense Department over incorrect and late paychecks,
[Rant] The US Military is facing a loss of troops, not to enemy fire or terrorist actions, but because they can't figure out how to pay our troops.
In 1780's US Troops marched on the government demanding payment promised during the war.
They were denied.
In 1930's US Troops marched on the government dmeanding payment and benefits promised in WWI. They were assaulted by Colonel (later General) McArthur and driven into the cardboard houses they had been staying out.
Today we can't even wait for the war to be over before we start messing around with the promises we made those people who are fighting and dieing for us.
Would Cheney be happy if Haliburton's pay check was delayed or denied? Would he calmly suggest that it be fixed in the future when those in charge finish looking at the committee's suggestions?
There are three very important lessons they teach you in Human Resources school.
1)Never mess with a person's pay. 2)Never mess with a person's pay who has a gun. 3)Never mess with a person's pay who has a gun and whom you have spent good money to train on how to use it. [/rant]
[ November 14, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Reading that, it doesn't sound like we don't have the money, or are unwilling to pay..
we just have a really lousy payroll system, and possibly payroll employees that don't know what they are doing...........
Farmgirl
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You are right. Its not that we don't want to pay our people. Its not that we don't have the money to pay our troops. Our government and military just never bothered to spend enough time to figure out how to pay everyone correctly.
Its not that we can't, or that we don't want to. Its just that its something our leaders don't want to be bothered to do. Why should the Pentagon Generals worry if the specialists in Afghanistan looses his home because he missed his mortgate payment, or that the wife of a front line grunt can't afford food for their child, or that G.I.Joe is so busy yelling at his LT about his missing paycheck that he doesn't see the roadside bomb until he's driven over it. Hey, as long as the newest multi-billion dollar weapons platform is set, and his future as a lobbyist after retirement is set, that is all that matters.
Over and over again the patriots in our country demand that we support them. We wave flags and we shout and we burn Dixie Chicks albums.
That's all bull.
If you really want to support our troops, write your senator now. Tell him they had best pay our troops accurately and on time or else we will find politicians who will convince the military to do so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow, you wonder why it’s almost impossible to have civil discussions in this country? Because people immediately jump from an administrative problem to a moral assessment.
What does Haliburton have to do with this? Nothing, it’s just another pathetic attempt to drag the same tired old complaints about Cheney into this.
Where’s your evidence that “Pentagon Generals” don’t care or couldn’t be bothered? Nowhere.
Not to excuse the foul-up, but the extent of this international National Guard deployment, both in numbers and time, is pretty unprecedented. National Guard paychecks usually come from the states; the paychecks in question are coming from the Pentagon. These soldiers have been moved to a totally different payroll system. It’s not an easy thing to do, and the payrolls system for the National Guard on active deployments was probably not designed with this much traffic in mind.
Does that mean they couldn’t have done better? No. But it does mean that failing to do something difficult perfectly the first time it’s been attempted is not a freakin’ conspiracy.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
As an ex-member of the military, I have to tell you that paychecks get screwed up all the time. When you go off to another country, things really get screwed up. When you are under hostile fire (receiving some sort of combat pay), problems get compounded even more. So why are they bringing up the problem now? Well, we currently have more people deployed for a longer period in a hostile situation then we have in a very long time. This means a larger number of people are getting their pay screwed up. This means more upset spouses, family members (especially, since some reservists had to leave higher paying jobs to go serve) because they are receiving less money and they have all these bills to pay. This means more letters to Congressmen, which results in the outrage that they can blame on the current administration. I'm no fan of Dubya's administration, but this is a very old problem and is certainly to be expected without a better system to handle payment. It's just bureaucracy as usual.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ah, yes, I remember that $9.11 paycheck we got for Christmas of 1992. I had been in the hospital so they just deducted it from our pay. Of course, they did medivac us across the Atlantic with a mid-air refueling.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
You know, I understand all the arguments about different payroll systems and having so many people deployed and all that.
But it seems to me to be a quite disrespectful stance by the powers that be, to expect people to risk their lives and then be so casual about putting a system in place that assures timely payment. From what I understand from local news, there are families left behind here at home that are having to go on assistance, are in some cases in danger of losing their homes, because the bureaucracy can't get its act together and get those soldiers paid.
Is this how they thank those they send into harm's way? If it is, I think it is pretty poor thanks.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
lma, sorry to say, there have always been families of soldiers who have needed financial assistance to put food on the table, in peace time as well as war time. It's a sad statement that the recent events are what it took to bring this to public attention. It's not just the reservists who are having this trouble. I feel especially sorry for the reservists and their families, though, because they never really knew where their support system was going to come in. There are Family Support Groups (sometimes also called Family Readiness Groups) inherent in the standing Army (and other branches) that most Army families are aware of, and get help through. The reservists and their families were kind of out of the loop there, until it became clearer how very long the deployments were going to be. jexx formerly on WIC (Women, Infant's and Children's Aid)
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
Military pay has always been and probably always will be screwed up. In the Marine Corps, at least, they apparently try to weed out anyone who might be slightly intelligent, organized, or good with paperwork, and make sure they end up no where near administrative matters. The Corps has owed me over $700 from a pay error for about 7 years now. When I changed Duty Stations back in '01, they bilked me out of another grand. Too bad for me.
But there are callous abuses, and apathy from higher up. Just ask servicemembers stationed in North Carolina, where good ole Donny Rumsfield wants to shut down military run schools and commisaries. I can tell you that for a lot of these servicemembers, those commisaries are the cheapest grocery stores around. Sometimes, in the more remote locations, they are the ONLY grocery stores around with in an hours drive.
The Cheif of Naval Operations, Vern Clark, wants to make the Navy do longer deployments, 9 months to a year, instead of 6 months. He claims that we will do fewer deployments this way. Which just means that we will constantly be training to go, which means that sea-going sailors and Marines won't be home for more than 3 months at a time with their families. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I signed the contract and all that, I go where I am told, when I am told. But the lack of concern for the family is apalling. There are programs to help families and loved ones deal with the separation, but that doesn't help kids much. Since 9-11, I have not been home for more than 4 months at a time. The last 8 month deployment that I got off of wasn't even related to the "War on Terrorism," It was just an excuse for the Admiral of our battle group to visit all the ports that he referred to as "The jewels of the Pacific." If it was good for my family, I would put up with another 12 years of this BS, but it's not, and I won't.
I am just ranting now, so I'll let it go.
[ November 16, 2003, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: Mazer ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
BACK OFF HALIBURTON
Haliburton is more than capable for the job it has been contracted to do, not to mention it has been a government contractor since the 1940's, a long time before Cheney was VP
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yeah, but the MANNER in which they got the contract is shady at best.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
My big problem with Halliburton is their tax dodging. There are a lot of loopholes they use which should have been closed long ago. That, and they've been known to engage in illegal practices (such as bribing government officials; don't worry, it was another government so nothing will be done), as well as semi-illegal practices like using european middleman to do business with embargoed Iraq.
Halliburton is a slimey corporation, and having a long history of dealing with the government (aka pork and waste central) isn't exactly a tick in the plus column.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Haliburton was handed a long-term, multi-BILLION dollar contract without having to bid against any competitors. The US government JUST HANDED THEM THE CONTRACT!
The British (we still think they know what the hell's going on, right?) were quite offended that none of their contractors were given an opportunity to bid on this lucrative contract.
Multi-Billion Contract. Awarded without a bid. To a company formerly run by the Vice President (who many claim is directing GWB's actions, but even if he isn't...)
Now all we need are semen stains on the dress of a dowdy intern, and we'd have ourselves a real scandal!
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Does it bother anyone else not directly involved with the military that our country can't even pay them enough to support their families without welfare assistance programs?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Mack, as someone with friends who left military service to start a family because they couldn't afford one in the service, it bothers me.
Dragon, I only brought up Haliburton to show that people with lobbyists and clout and majore campaign donations get paid on time.
I did not say there is a conspiracy to short pay our troops. I am just pissed off that their pay is so far down on the list of what our current war plan considers urgent.
Whenever I hear a politician talk about being "Strong on Defence" they are always talking about more tanks, air craft carriers, planes, and missiles. At best they are talking new camps or bases or repairing old ones--anything that contractors and arms makers can get paid for. Rarely if ever do they talk about troop pay.
Who was it that said, "Ameuteur Generals thinks Strategy. Professional's think Logistics." I say that no patriotic American can not be upset that the people fighting our fight are having their pay lost in the shuffle, no matter what the size of the deployment. That is not an excuse, it is an explanation of why we goofed up.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I think it comes down to something that I have been realizing here of lates: the Republicans claim a lot of political high grounds, but occupy few of them.
*Republicans understand business and how tax burdens should be shared: Strange, our biggest recessions of the past 35 years came at the hands of Republicans.
*Republicans can control deficits: Strange, Reagan was elected partly on the fact that Carter had a multi-billion dollar deficit going. It quadrupled in Reagan's first term and continued to rise through Bush, Sr.'s term. It was actually being paid down considerably during Clinton's two terms.
*Republicans are strong on defense: History doesn't show this. They are strong on the military/industrial complex, but have little idea of how individual soldiers deserve to be taken care of or the values of their lives. Historically, not counting the Civil War, Republican presidents have only been successful with short brushfire wars, ones they have generally started.
*Republicans will take care of senior citizens: Not while they are siding with pharmaceutical coverage and blocking efforts for better health care options. Oh, did I mention that the plan to save Social Security has pretty much gone out the window and that the old lock box has been raided again and again to meet the deficit?
*Republicans are the guardians of traditional family values: I've seen a lot of smoke, but no fire here. They don't touch on families or protecting them or even making sure that low and middle class families can afford health care for their children. They've also gutted federal education spending. It was under a Democratic administration that allowed mothers to receive family leave to have and raise children or for families to address the needs of the sick and elderly in their families.
*Republicans have ethics: Enron, Tyco, Worldcom anyone? Remember the big deal they made over Clinton's attempted pardons or Whitewater deals or favors to cronies? Tsk tsk tsk, you guys are worse than the Dems ever were.
*Republicans have character and strength: Bush ran like a scalded dog on 9/11 and Rudy Giuliani became the emotional leader of our nation on that dark and difficult day. Thanks for that show of bravery, Dubya. Clinton submitted to independent counsel investigations over what were honestly trivial matters leading to a verdict of... perjury... all that time and effort, and you come up with perjury on an issue that wasn't even part of the original investigation. Yet we can't even find out what dealings your administration had with the Taliban prior to 9/11 or who leaked the names of one of our covert operatives?
You folks aren't Republicans, you're the spoiled children of the real Republicans who DID have those qualities. They've laid claim to those values as a birthright, but have neither earned them nor lived them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sopwith, are you talking to the Republican politicians or to the rank-and-file?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
The politicians currently running the Republican show. I just can't get beyond the notion that they are charlatans of a sort. They've wrapped themselves in the traditions of the party, but haven't proven themselves to be very effective.
It's just like they were children putting on mommy and daddy's clothes and pretending to go to work. It's cute to see them playing, but you wouldn't actually want to put them in charge of the family business.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's a broad characterizations of a large number of politicians. Could you cite some examples?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Reagan, Bush Sr., Quayle, Nixon, Agnew, Bush Jr., Cheney, Gingrich and the Broken Contract with America crowd of Reps and Senators...
Off the top of my head.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, not names. Examples of why a few of those people you listed fit your characterization. It would be great if they would be people who are currently holding office, or else have done so in the last, say, ten years.
[ November 18, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sopwith, I have to tell you, your posts sounds like you are repeating someone else's contentions without being able to point to the source of the information. If you could pick one or two current Republican politicians - Bush, most likely, and one other - and show how both fit every characteristic on your list, that would go a long way to lending it credibility.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sopwith said: *Republicans understand business and how tax burdens should be shared: Strange, our biggest recessions of the past 35 years came at the hands of Republicans.
The Republicans have controlled the White House in 26 and a half of the last 35 years, or 75% of the time. So one would expect them to have presided over the most severe recessions. Interesting choice of cutoff to avoid the recessions in the 60s and the Great Depression, 7 years of which occurred under a Democratic president.
quote:*Republicans can control deficits: Strange, Reagan was elected partly on the fact that Carter had a multi-billion dollar deficit going. It quadrupled in Reagan's first term and continued to rise through Bush, Sr.'s term. It was actually being paid down considerably during Clinton's two terms.
First, deficits aren’t paid down – debts are. Big difference. Think before you rant.
Second, Reagan faced a Democratic House (and Senate for 6 of his 8 years), forcing him to make a tradeoff to get his military budget passed. The same military budgets that eventually led to the end of the Cold War.
Third, the deficit shrunk and became a surplus under the first Republican Congress in 45 years.
quote:*Republicans are strong on defense: History doesn't show this. They are strong on the military/industrial complex, but have little idea of how individual soldiers deserve to be taken care of or the values of their lives. Historically, not counting the Civil War, Republican presidents have only been successful with short brushfire wars, ones they have generally started.
First, which wars count as long, non-brushfire wars? Since the Civil War, that would be the two World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Korea was finished by Eisenhower. Vietnam spanned two Democratic and one Republican presidencies.
Second, the point of a strong defense is that you don’t have to fight large wars because people know you will win them.
Third, it is valuing soldier’s lives to be sure that enough force is available and used when putting troops in harms way. The Gulf Wars were only “brushfire” (although I would dispute your characterization of them as such) because of the overwhelming US military force on the scene.
quote:*Republicans will take care of senior citizens: Not while they are siding with pharmaceutical coverage and blocking efforts for better health care options. Oh, did I mention that the plan to save Social Security has pretty much gone out the window and that the old lock box has been raided again and again to meet the deficit?
By taking care of seniors you mean allocating assets to provide prescription drugs to them irrespective of need? If so, then Republicans definitely aren’t “taking care of seniors.” But if you mean ensuring that the most effective (as a whole) bioresearch industry in the world stays capable of producing the life-saving, quality of life enhancing drugs for all Americans, then yes, they are.
quote:*Republicans are the guardians of traditional family values: I've seen a lot of smoke, but no fire here. They don't touch on families or protecting them or even making sure that low and middle class families can afford health care for their children. They've also gutted federal education spending. It was under a Democratic administration that allowed mothers to receive family leave to have and raise children or for families to address the needs of the sick and elderly in their families.
quote:*Republicans have ethics: Enron, Tyco, Worldcom anyone? Remember the big deal they made over Clinton's attempted pardons or Whitewater deals or favors to cronies? Tsk tsk tsk, you guys are worse than the Dems ever were.
Enron, Tyco, Worldcom were frauds against stockholders conducted by private individuals begun under a Democratic president. Oh, yeah, forgot about that, didn’t you.
quote:*Republicans have character and strength: Bush ran like a scalded dog on 9/11 and Rudy Giuliani became the emotional leader of our nation on that dark and difficult day. Thanks for that show of bravery, Dubya. Clinton submitted to independent counsel investigations over what were honestly trivial matters leading to a verdict of... perjury... all that time and effort, and you come up with perjury on an issue that wasn't even part of the original investigation. Yet we can't even find out what dealings your administration had with the Taliban prior to 9/11 or who leaked the names of one of our covert operatives?
Bush was carrying out a pre-existing plan whose purpose was to ensure that our leadership remained intact in a crisis situation. Rudy Giuliani is a Republican.
Clinton submitted to nothing – had no choice in the matter. He did, however, conspire to block recovery in a sexual harassment suit that involved an assault. This is not a matter to be tsked tsked away – it goes to the heart of our legal system.
quote:You folks aren't Republicans, you're the spoiled children of the real Republicans who DID have those qualities. They've laid claim to those values as a birthright, but have neither earned them nor lived them.
Whom are you speaking to? The Republicans named in your rant? I doubt they post here. The posters on this board who mostly vote Republican? Nothing you’ve said here speaks to their integrity, bravery, or character.
Dagonee
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
What I find puzzling is that Republicans are accused in one breath of running massive deficits and in the next of not spending enough on social services (like health care). Ideally, should we allocate a lot of funding to social services? Sure. But if the money's not there, you're only putting yourself deeper in the hole and assuring that the programs will one day collapse when you go completely broke. There are other things, like protecting businesses, that you've got to do to assure that the money will come in so that, one day, you can provide those benefits without wrecking the economy. For doing this Republicans are accused of not caring about regular people and catering to big business.
For Pete's sake, if you can't understand that you can't spend what you don't have, at least sit down and play SimCity for a while! Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I had things to say, but Dagonee said them.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)