Republicans Vote Against Funding Troops in Iraq

[Gunny]

No, do you think the United States was "commie" or something equivalent during WWII when they set prices for everything from sugar to aluminum? No, they knew they were fighting a war and that we all had a burden to bear. That included not only the fighters but the funders as well.



Agreed that we'll never see the Iraqis foot the bill. And, agreed that it sucks we're using contractors for so much of the war effort. But, that's what happens when the Army's personnel structure makes it impossible to keep up with the pay structure of the jobs available.

The military's pay scales and force structure are ill-equipped for the modern world and the funding the military gets. Computers have really made a mess of the whole thing because you need enlisted servicemen to run these systems (with some officer to manage them)... yet they can make three to four times what the military will pay enlisted personnel in the real world. They get me at a bargain because I'm IT in the civilian world doing a job for my unit at a bargain rate. They'd have to pay me O-7 pay to compensate me equally to what I make in the real world. But, then they'd have to put me in a job which isn't the job they need filled. Catch-22.

But don't act as if the Republican Congress which held the purse strings since 1994 couldn't have grown the military. Downsizing the military was the brainchild of Don Rumsfeld during the first Bush Administration (not to mention that it was deemed wholly and completely necessary in 1990 when the Republicans were pushing for it).

I wasn't blaming the downsizing of the military on anyone. IIRC, it was the result of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Bill which I think came out at the very end of Reagan's last 4. The real effect came at the conclusion of the First Gulf War when they were sending people from the battlefield to HOME. In the Marines, it was exacerbated by implementing Stop-Loss; which, means anyone whose EAS rolled around during the conflict was involuntarily extended for the conclusion.

The Marine Corps had to trim dowm from approx 228K personnel to 175k personnel. However, the latter number was the actual strength number allowed for the Marine Corps by law. I believe the number was later revised to 150K. That doesn't leave a lot of room to fully-man combat arms units and support units.

Their answer was to hire civilians. IMO, it would have been more cost effective to revise the manpower numbers by replacing most civilians with Marines, and showing the correlating civilian cuts with the needed rise in Marine numbers. As it is, they probably hired as many civilians as they pushed Marines out, and they are far more limited in what they can do with them.

And yeah, the disparity in pay for technical skills kind of sucks. You could probably retire and turn right around and apply for a Civil Service job doing the same thing you're doing now for twice the pay.

 

[pegwinn]

Wrong.

One, the downsizing started during the first Bush Administration in the 1990's. It's well documented. In addition, the President does not define the funding for the military. The Congress does. Last time I checked, starting in 1994 the House was run by the Republicans.

Two, like I said above, the military's structure and pay scales are completely inadequate and incapable of competing with the real world. All one has to do is call the IT office for their local Reserve Support Command... more civilians than military.

Not wrong. Correct. The reduction to 172000 came immediatly following President Clintons inauguration. That was the same year that SSB/VSI was introduced. The promotions got tightened up and good Marines were forced out. Been there.

Additionally, while Congress sets the numbers, the SECDEF and by extension POTUS can realign the funds to thier hearts content.

Actually when you consider what you are getting, the starting pay for Pvts and PFC's is good. The gap grows as you gain rank. You are an IT guy huh? How much did it cost to train you? Most IT guys I know had to foot the bill. If you are a serviceman, Uncle pays out the ducats for training. So when you get out, you have experience and training. You may need to take a class or two to upgrade an area of expertise, but you are still marketable.

Oh, and it isn't the militarys job to compete in the real world. Thier job is to break things and kill people.

 

[jasendorf]

Let's see, so far today you've expressed jealousy at other's rep points and post counts, you certainly are a wee little man.

Listen up stumpy, your points are so low because of your attitude, even amongst those that agree with you, some would have trouble repping. Here's the deal, you neg rep me or slam my posting style again, I will neg you. If you post something reasonable in a reasonable manner, I may rep you.

As for '4 word posts,' you really should go back and look, you haven't a clue to what you are talking about.

Stop crying.

If you don't want comment on your posts... don't post worthless things like "Perfect" as the only word of yours. All something like that is for is increasing post count. Neg rep me all you want. Show us all how big and bad you are. You're the queen. We all know.

So, you want to retaliate for repping you appropriately? (Quite honestly, I don't know when I supposedly neg repped you... but if I did it was with good reason) Is that how repping is done around here? Retaliation? Good to know where you're coming from.

 

[jasendorf]

Not wrong. Correct. The reduction to 172000 came immediatly following President Clintons inauguration. That was the same year that SSB/VSI was introduced. The promotions got tightened up and good Marines were forced out. Been there.

Additionally, while Congress sets the numbers, the SECDEF and by extension POTUS can realign the funds to thier hearts content.

Actually when you consider what you are getting, the starting pay for Pvts and PFC's is good. The gap grows as you gain rank. You are an IT guy huh? How much did it cost to train you? Most IT guys I know had to foot the bill. If you are a serviceman, Uncle pays out the ducats for training. So when you get out, you have experience and training. You may need to take a class or two to upgrade an area of expertise, but you are still marketable.

Oh, and it isn't the militarys job to compete in the real world. Thier job is to break things and kill people.

To clarify... my MOS is not IT.

I have an additional duty (for both my unit and my battalion) as a "first line of support" for IT issues. Uncle Sam didn't pay a dime for my technical training. In fact, not even for my MOS either (that's right... I'm one of a dying breed who have skipped AIT and went straight to an OJT, went straight from basic to an active unit for a month of "here's how we do it in the Army").

So, to answer your question... not a dime to train me in IT or my MOS (which explains why I entered the Army as a PFC at 17).

 

[Annie]

Stop crying.

If you don't want comment on your posts... don't post worthless things like "Perfect" as the only word of yours. All something like that is for is increasing post count. Neg rep me all you want. Show us all how big and bad you are. You're the queen. We all know.

So, you want to retaliate for repping you appropriately? (Quite honestly, I don't know when I supposedly neg repped you... but if I did it was with good reason) Is that how repping is done around here? Retaliation? Good to know where you're coming from.

It wasn't me that was 'crying' Mister, but you. Why don't you concern yourself with your own pov and either argue or ignore what you do not like?

I can post any one word or 15k words I care to, unless Scott decides not. That's the way things work.

 

[pegwinn]

It wasn't me that was 'crying' Mister, but you. Why don't you concern yourself with your own pov and either argue or ignore what you do not like?

I can post any one word or 15k words I care to, unless Scott decides not. That's the way things work.

Being succinct is a blessing. I myself ramble on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on trying to make sure my words of wisdom are properly applied. It's a curse.

 

[eots]

US to attack Iran by end of April: report

India News | April 5, 2007

The US is planning to attack Iran's nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of this month, the Kuwait-based Arab Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Citing anonymous sources in Washington, it said that various White House departments had started preparing the political speech to be delivered by the US president later this month, announcing the military attack on Iran.

The speech will provide the 'evidence' and the 'justification' for the US to resort to the military option after failing to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions, said the report.

According to the Times, one of the justifications expected in the speech is Iran's alleged role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by supporting various militias with money and arms.

The US president's speech will also point to Iran's political interference in Iraq, obviously in cooperation with Syria.

The sources were quoted as saying that US will not resort to a ground attack in order to avoid human losses.

 

[red states rule]

US to attack Iran by end of April: report

India News | April 5, 2007

The US is planning to attack Iran's nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of this month, the Kuwait-based Arab Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Citing anonymous sources in Washington, it said that various White House departments had started preparing the political speech to be delivered by the US president later this month, announcing the military attack on Iran.

The speech will provide the 'evidence' and the 'justification' for the US to resort to the military option after failing to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions, said the report.

According to the Times, one of the justifications expected in the speech is Iran's alleged role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by supporting various militias with money and arms.

The US president's speech will also point to Iran's political interference in Iraq, obviously in cooperation with Syria.

The sources were quoted as saying that US will not resort to a ground attack in order to avoid human losses.

Tells you alot when the kook left believes foreign press outlets over their own liberal NY Times

Libs live to find and spread bad news or anything that paints their own country in a bad light

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

US to attack Iran by end of April: report

India News | April 5, 2007

The US is planning to attack Iran's nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of this month, the Kuwait-based Arab Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Citing anonymous sources in Washington, it said that various White House departments had started preparing the political speech to be delivered by the US president later this month, announcing the military attack on Iran.

The speech will provide the 'evidence' and the 'justification' for the US to resort to the military option after failing to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions, said the report.

According to the Times, one of the justifications expected in the speech is Iran's alleged role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by supporting various militias with money and arms.

The US president's speech will also point to Iran's political interference in Iraq, obviously in cooperation with Syria.

The sources were quoted as saying that US will not resort to a ground attack in order to avoid human losses.

Great MILITARY STRATEGY......LET'S ANNOUNCE THE ATTACK TO THE WORLD!!!!!

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

Tells you alot when the kook left believes foreign press outlets over their own liberal NY Times

Libs live to find and spread bad news or anything that paints their own country in a bad light

And you swallow everything right wing rags/hack sights feed you without QUESTION.

 

[red states rule]

And you swallow everything right wing rags/hack sights feed you without QUESTION.

No, but unlike libs, I do not go through life smearing my own country

 

[Gunny]

To clarify... my MOS is not IT.

I have an additional duty (for both my unit and my battalion) as a "first line of support" for IT issues. Uncle Sam didn't pay a dime for my technical training. In fact, not even for my MOS either (that's right... I'm one of a dying breed who have skipped AIT and went straight to an OJT, went straight from basic to an active unit for a month of "here's how we do it in the Army").

So, to answer your question... not a dime to train me in IT or my MOS (which explains why I entered the Army as a PFC at 17).

Just a suggestion if you don't already know, it doesn't matter what you are capable of out here. You need that piece of paper that says you were trained to do the job IF you want the pay that goes with it.

Few people will hire you without the papertrail, and if they do, you can rest-assured it'll be some mom-n-pop business that'll take the chance and not a larger business/corporation; which, = less pay & benefits.

 

[pegwinn]

Just a suggestion if you don't already know, it doesn't matter what you are capable of out here. You need that piece of paper that says you were trained to do the job IF you want the pay that goes with it.

Few people will hire you without the papertrail, and if they do, you can rest-assured it'll be some mom-n-pop business that'll take the chance and not a larger business/corporation; which, = less pay & benefits.

I forgot that an Army PFC is an E3. So, instead of paying for his advanced training, they simply upped the amount they would pay him. Same money or slightly less.

I'm not an expert in the civilian sector employment game. I would expect that they demand accredation so that if they fire you for incompetence you cannot sue them.

 

[Gunny]

I forgot that an Army PFC is an E3. So, instead of paying for his advanced training, they simply upped the amount they would pay him. Same money or slightly less.

I'm not an expert in the civilian sector employment game. I would expect that they demand accredation so that if they fire you for incompetence you cannot sue them.

It's also to prevent the inevitable lawsuit that follows ANY problem that comes of an employee not possessing the required credentials to perform his/her job.

Say he crashed a system that down the line put somene out of business, or hammered them pretty good. They would most certainly go after the provider for compensation. Wouldn't be too hard for a jury to never get past the fact that the operator was not properly trained/licensed to perform the job as being the reason the system crashed; whether or not it was actually the cause.

 

[red states rule]

Before the election, Dems said they would not cut off funding to the troops

Then they pass non binding bills saying they would

The they passed their "Surrender At All Costs" bill

When they see it would be vetoed by Pres Bush, they say they will cut off funding

Now, some Dems say they won't

Is John Kerry running the party?



Senate Democrats say they won't halt funding for troops

By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 9, 2007


Two leading Senate Democrats said their party will not cut off funding for U.S. troops in Iraq, distancing themselves from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who now says he supports doing so.
"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," said Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and Armed Services Committee chairman.
Mr. Levin said he and other Democrats would continue to pressure President Bush on enforcing benchmarks for progress in Iraq, but ultimately most of his colleagues will support funding because they do not have the votes to override Mr. Bush's veto.
"What we're going to try to do, a majority, I believe, of Democrats and most of the Republicans, is to vote for a bill that funds the troops, period," he said during an appearance on ABC's "This Week." "We're going to fund the troops. We always have."
President Bush has said he will veto either the House-passed or Senate-passed supplemental war-spending bills, which both call for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq by next year. In addition to opposing any timeline for withdrawal or redeployment, Mr. Bush and other Republicans have criticized the billions of pork-barrel spending included in both the House and Senate bills.
Mr. Reid announced his own legislation, which would cut off funding for the troops next March. Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin agreed to co-sponsor the bill, which Mr. Reid says he plans to put forward if Mr. Bush vetoes the current war supplemental-funding bill. But Mr. Levin said the majority leader spoke only for himself, not the party as a whole.
"Even Harry Reid acknowledged that that's not going to happen," Mr. Levin said in reference to cutting off funding. "He has a personal position, which he said was not the caucus position."
Meanwhile, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, echoed Mr. Levin's comments on troop funding, telling "Fox News Sunday" that "We are not going to leave the troops high and dry, plain and simple. Senator Reid has said that. I've said that. Every leader of the Democratic Party has said that."
Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, said he would continue to oppose a Democratic supplemental bill that removed a timetable but contained specific benchmarks, calling it unfair to Iraqis.
"First of all, it's premised on the notion that the Iraqis aren't listening to us," he said. "They are cooperating with us. So that's old news that they're not cooperating. That's one of the reasons this new surge strategy is working."
Although Mr. Reid recently changed his position to favor a withdrawal timetable, some Senate moderates said they continue to oppose what Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, called "micromanaging" the president and generals.
"I'm not prepared to withdraw funding at this time. But my patience, like many others, is growing very thin," Mr. Specter told CNN's "Late Edition."
Mr. Kyl also said withholding money to send a message to Iraqis would send other messages.
"You're also sending a message to our troops and to our enemies, who know that all they have to do is wait the conflict out. This is not the way to try to micromanage a war from the U.S. Senate," he said.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, also disagreed with timelines during an appearance on CNN.
"Putting a timeline on is always a mistake in war because it says that a bunch of political people in Washington know better than the generals in the field what's going to be happening four months, six months, a year from now," he said, "unless you are prepared to say we have lost in Iraq, we have no chance and we're prepared to accept the consequences of withdrawal, which I think would be terrible for American security."


http://washingtontimes.com/national/...2617-4964r.htm

 

[jasendorf]

Just a suggestion if you don't already know, it doesn't matter what you are capable of out here. You need that piece of paper that says you were trained to do the job IF you want the pay that goes with it.

Few people will hire you without the papertrail, and if they do, you can rest-assured it'll be some mom-n-pop business that'll take the chance and not a larger business/corporation; which, = less pay & benefits.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm a reservist. Out here in the real world I work for a Fortune 250 corporation as a business systems specialist.

 

[Gunny]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm a reservist. Out here in the real world I work for a Fortune 250 corporation as a business systems specialist.

I was under the impression from your posts you were on active duty filling a secondary MOS billet for which you had no formal training.

The reason I made the statement I did is, based on this premise, I've known people to get out of the military planning on using skills they have no formal training for and end up with a rude awakening in the end.

I guess my point is it's easy to fall into the military mindset of "If you can type you're a clerk" -- meaning, the military, at least in my experience in the Corps, will stick you in whatever job they need filled if you can handle it without regard to educational qualfiers. Not so out here in the "real world," where you don't even get an interview without the "paper" that says you're qualified.

 

[jasendorf]

I was under the impression from your posts you were on active duty filling a secondary MOS billet for which you had no formal training.

The reason I made the statement I did is, based on this premise, I've known people to get out of the military planning on using skills they have no formal training for and end up with a rude awakening in the end.

I guess my point is it's easy to fall into the military mindset of "If you can type you're a clerk" -- meaning, the military, at least in my experience in the Corps, will stick you in whatever job they need filled if you can handle it without regard to educational qualfiers. Not so out here in the "real world," where you don't even get an interview without the "paper" that says you're qualified.

I don't have any special papers. My degree is in the arts. I do have mad skills though. That's what sells out here in the real world. You either do or you don't do and if you don't do, you don't have a job.

 

[Gunny]

I don't have any special papers. My degree is in the arts. I do have mad skills though. That's what sells out here in the real world. You either do or you don't do and if you don't do, you don't have a job.

BY "paper," I mean a degree/accredidation. Perhaps you have been fortunate to sell your skills without the accredidation. From my observation, its difficult if not impossible to even get in the door for the interview without the accredidation attached to the employment request.

 

[jasendorf]

BY "paper," I mean a degree/accredidation. Perhaps you have been fortunate to sell your skills without the accredidation. From my observation, its difficult if not impossible to even get in the door for the interview without the accredidation attached to the employment request.

I know what you meant. I have none of the above. But, I've gone from Kinko's computer services guy (or, otherwise known as "Resume Formatter") to what I'm doing now because I can read. It can be done. You just need the will to make it happen.