Topic: What's a Military Family Worth?
started by: Wolfguard
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 05 2002,13:34
| Quote |
| I think the vast differences in compensation between the victims of the September 11th casualty, and those who die serving the country in uniform, are profound. No one is really talking about it either because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11th. Well, I just can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country.If you lost a family member in the September 11th attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million. If you are a surviving family member of American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt. Keep in mind that some of the people that are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough.We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11th families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well. You see where this is going, don't you?Folks, this is part and parcel of over fifty years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. "Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." --Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr. Every time when a pay raise comes up for the military they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in lowrent housing. However our own U.S. Congress just voted themselves a raise, and many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one-time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month and most are now equal to be millionaires plus. They also do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system.If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7 you may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed you in harms way receive a pension of $15,000 per month. I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting. |
This guy has really never said anything i totaly agree with till this.
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 05 2002,15:39
The difference is that when you join the military in the US (it is currently a choice as there is no draft) you assume a certain risk. If you are the sole support of your family then maybe you should rethink your career path. The victims of Sept 11th were civilians and were let down by our government who was supposed to protect them. I personally think we should honor the PD & Fire Dept of NY, but they should not get any more money then if they died at the scene of a routine fire ...as they were doing the same job and they were well aware of the risks. The difference between the World Trade Center and the Oklahoma Federal building is that the trade center collapse was caused by a plane that was in Federally controlled air-space ...the federal government is held responsible for keeping us safe from all the planes in the sky. A bomb outside the building caused the Oklahoma bombing, the bomb never entered the federally protected walls of the building or any federally protected air space. Sure the Oklahoma tragedy points out the need for more security in the parking lot, but the government showed limited negligence with respect to being able to prevent such a bombing.
If the government didn't pay the people off they would have sued (and won) a lot more money.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 05 2002,16:06
While I agree with everything Wiley says, part of the intent was an attack on the 'entitlement mentality' of the United States. Personally I don't see any reason to give massive handouts in the millions. Don't get me wrong, 9/11 was a tragedy, and obviously the federal government should (to a reasonable degree) be held accountable. But aside from paying for damages and a little extra, what's the justification for all the extra money? Obviously reimbursement should be handed out. A little extra, while it won't alleviate the pain, is certainly a courteous gesture. But there's a lot of people in America who die every day because they can't afford health care. People die from such trivialities as influenza, simply because they can't afford vaccinations. $4 million can go a long way to saving a lot of lives. I'm not cold hearted, I feel sorry for 9/11 victims, but I also feel sorry for the forgotten people without health care, and for the people who live in high-crime areas without the money to hire more police officers. I have a hard time justifying $4 million to one victim, and not another (these are tax dollars...those same tax dollars that could have been spent on these other groups).
Same sort of reasoning applies to the money raised by individuals...although what private citizens want to do with their own money is their own business (although it's still a shame that only celebrity victims get the help they need).
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 05 2002,16:38
| Quote |
| Every time when a pay raise comes up for the military they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in lowrent housing. However our own U.S. Congress just voted themselves a raise, and many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one-time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month and most are now equal to be millionaires plus. They also do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system.If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7 you may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed you in harms way receive a pension of $15,000 per month. I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting. |
This is the part that pisses me off the most. The people that our out there getting shot at while defending this country getting screwed.
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 05 2002,17:12
Pravus Angelus, I agree with you there. It is a shame that people feel they are owed money as the result of a loss. And it seems like the more press you get about your loss then the more free money that you feel you're entitled to. Sure a plane hit the office of some poor people in NY, but every day some poor soul is struck by a bus going to work and his family doesn't see enough money to pay for the funeral.This is why I have life insurence. I want to protect the future security of my wife and my family (if I have one in the future) and not count on some handout. While I'm glad to see some of the innocent victims got money to help rebuild their lives, I don't think the country OWES them any of it ...it should be taken as a sorry we fucked up and got you killed ...maybe this money will help ease the pain kinda thing. Don't we get enough from our country already?
Wolfguard ...I think the military doesn't get raises as much as they should because they are collectively willing to take the lowball amount that is currently given to them. Military paygrades are public information ...if you choose not to research it before signing up then why should the government foot the bill for increasing your salary? The only way for the military to get paid more is to get people to stop signing up for a few years and claiming that poor pay was the reason ...a few years of that and the government would be forced to offer more incentives. This is the same for teachers ...the only way for teachers to get paid more is for people to stop becoming teachers. It's supply and demand, if I have people willing to work for 30K/yr then why would I pay somebody with the same credentials 60K/yr? As for congress passing their own payraise, they all knew they could do that when they took the position ...they became polititions for the money!! Who was the last person you knew who wanted to become a teacher or join the Army to become rich? You can't fault somebody for doing exactly what they set out to do.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 05 2002,17:57
does not make it less fucked up
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 06 2002,06:24
I'm with Wolfguard on this one.There are some cases where the free market mentality does not, and should not, apply.
One of them is military personnel.
Teachers are another one.
Screw their market value. Pay them what they're worth.
Posted by kuru on Jun. 06 2002,14:47
Are you guys talking about government money through taxes, or the voluntary donations people poured out of their own pockets when the Red Cross said that those donations would go to the families of the vicitms?Because if it's the latter, you're off base. People voluntarily donated their money to a specific fund designated to be distributed among the victims and their families. It was a good-faith act of humanity done by people who specified where they wanted their donation to go.
The wishes of the people who donated should be respected in that case.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 06 2002,15:09
Perhaps we should decrease purchase of new weapons, and increase wages for soldiers. Then taxes woudn't increase, and soldiers would get enough cash to not qualify for food stamps.
Posted by demonk on Jun. 06 2002,17:31
Kuru, I'm pretty sure they were talking about our tax dollars going to the families of the survivors. I don't see how anyone could possibly complain about a group of people getting money that was donated directly to that group (but I bet CK can find an example).
Posted by kuru on Jun. 06 2002,18:27
Well then I agree that multi-million dollar settlements are far too much.We should be rolling that money into resources and pay for the people who are currently charged with keeping our asses safe in this war.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 07 2002,04:52
I guess I get to be the one to take a lone, highly flamed stand.The military does not deserve more funding and by god people in the military do not deserve more pay.
First, on funding. The military has got to be the single least efficient organization on the face of the earth. Virtually every training exercise military organizations engage in, they use too much stuff. Ammo's a great example. Companys frequently request far more ammo than they need, just to be on the safe side. However, they always expend all of it, so they can report that such and such a training exercise (say, 4 days of MOUT) required so many rounds to justify requesting the same amount next time. It's not uncommon at all on the last day of a training evolution (why they call it that is beyond me) to fire off a few hundred rounds just for the sake of getting rid of it (another reason for this is ammo expenditure reports are a pain in the ass when you have to return live or jacked up ammo. It's a lot easier to just return dunnage (sp?), and staff are very often quite lazy).
A lot of screwups happen because of terrible communication. Communication problems that could easily be fixed by outsourcing a lot of the administrative work to competent, civilian personnel, where you allow the free market to take over. Obviously you can't outsource intel and the like, but the day-to-day requirements of running a base like Camp Pendleton are far better handled by companies like CBRE than military personnel. Same goes for IT.
Second, on pay. Here's the scam... military people do not get paid a lot, it's true. But they have far fewer expenses (free medical & dental for example), and there're some great scams for making a ton of tax free cash in the military, and they take advantage of it. For instance, an activated reserve unit gets Basic allowance for housing (BAH), based soley on pay grade and zip code. All you have to do is produce a lease agreement dated prior to mobilization (this can be with your parents or anybody else). The BAH you receive has nothing to do with the amount on your lease agreement. So, one of the many things your tax dollars is paying for, is for someone from an expensive area (based on zip code) to get from $800-$1400 a month for having a lease agreement of $200/month with his/her parents. This is not a joke, I know people who are doing this right now.
There're a bunch more examples, like per diem, but the bottom line is military people can (and do) scam the system for a fair chunk of tax free money. Plus, just about everywhere near a military base offers some very significant military discounts. People in the military aren't on food stamps, although it's not too hard to distore the information to make it look like they are. If you're comparing your gross yearly income with the gross yearly base pay of a military member, then you're not even coming close to seeing who gets more money.
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 08 2002,06:49
I basically agree that military personnel shouldn't get paid more money, but for a different reason.My opinion is based on the fact that they were told how much they would be getting paid before they enlisted. So they are getting what they expected to be getting. How could you somehow expect to get more after you've signed your life away? I have the same opinion about people who are not smart enough to negotiate salary before starting a job and wait for their first review to try and bump up their salary ...it's a bit late. Bitch about it all you want ...you have no power to negotiate
If some of you want to make it better for our boys in uniform then start a campaign to keep deadbeats who will take any offer Uncle Sam throws at them out of the service. Pass out flyers outside the recruiter's office ...of course this will require work and we all know that liberals like to talk about injustice and not really do anything about it.
Edit: I knew I had written this before ...oh well ...here it is again.
Posted by ^Evil_Matt^ on Jun. 08 2002,14:24
Congress (that's American parliment, right?) passing their own pay-wait a sec... politicians corrupt?!? Never!!
In Australia, there are a few notable cases of corruption as of late. You've got the minister who gave his free phone card code to his son, which then passed it around to his friends, which eventually rang up a total of around $50 000. Or the MP who was convicted of fraud and bribery, but will walk away with a gold travel pass giving him lifetime free domestic train, bus & plane travel. Or finally, the minister for medicine who, after aproving a multi-million dollar headquaters for a medical union, left government a few months later for a high-ranking job in it - and kept on using his government email for 4 months out of office.
and we trust our country to these people??
In their defence, about a month ago i went to this youth politics forum where reps from all types of governments where there (local, state, federal, union) and most of them seemed honestly good. Except this one guy, who i overheard telling someone how to win pre-selection (rep. a political party in an election) the easy way.
-matt
Posted by CaptainEO on Jun. 12 2002,05:42
| Quote (Pravus Angelus @ 06 June 2002,20:52) |
| Virtually every training exercise military organizations engage in, they use too much stuff. Ammo's a great example. Companys frequently request far more ammo than they need, just to be on the safe side... |
Right on, Pravus... What really gets me is that due to an executive order put in place by former Pres. Clinton, the US military is not allowed to recover costs by selling surplus ammo to civilians. So every year the military ends up burning millions of perfectly good rounds... (and this stuff ain't cheap either - 5.56mm cartridges for M16s are 15-20 cents/round, and it goes up from there...). I'm not saying for sure they'd be able to sell off all unused ammo, but certainly sales could generate enough money to do something useful (enhance training, recruiting, pay for healtheir school lunches, whatever)... Plus I could be contributing to the US economy instead of sending my $$$ overseas for South Afrian or Russian surplus ammo...
Posted by veistran on Jun. 12 2002,08:38
they also shoot it off because they don't want to have to lug it back with them. 
anyway, yes the millitary has a lot of beaurocracy, for a good laugh HBO did a film about the Bradley called I believe "The Pentagon Wars." Really funny about all the beaurocracy surrounding the development of weapons in the millitary. It's funny but sad at the same time since so much of it is true.