House panel rejects benefits cuts in 2015 defense budget

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.armytimes.com/article/201...-benefits-cuts


BMT

[Pete]

"...And the lawmakers also signaled that they want service members to play a role in deciding what pay and benefits cuts they’ll see in the future, proposing a study that would ask troops to rank their benefits in value and importance — for example, whether they value health care and bigger paychecks over retirement pay and housing allowances..."

Of course a young troop in the barracks will say bigger paycheck. What do they care about health care benefits, retirement check or the commissary.

Talk about driving a wedge into the opposition...

[Basenshukai]

To me, what is problematic is that national defense benefits every American citizen. Yet, in order to shore up the costs of this defense, the lawmakers target only the very people required to bring about that national defense.

By that logic, if the government wanted to remedy the issues in funding welfare, they would be making cuts to other programs that are used by the very recipients of welfare in order to bring the latter program to economic viability. But, that is not how it is done, is it? Instead, raising taxes on those less likely to use welfare is implemented to raise the funding for that program. If national defense was looked at the same way, I'd like to see an increase in everyone's taxes, or cut in other programs that impact most Americans so that all Americans can benefit from the national defense they seem to treasure so much.

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by Basenshukai

To me, what is problematic is that national defense benefits every American citizen. Yet, in order to shore up the costs of this defense, the lawmakers target only the very people required to bring about that national defense.

By that logic, if the government wanted to remedy the issues in funding welfare, they would be making cuts to other programs that are used by the very recipients of welfare in order to bring the latter program to economic viability. But, that is not how it is done, is it? Instead, raising taxes on those less likely to use welfare is implemented to raise the funding for that program. If national defense was looked at the same way, I'd like to see an increase in everyone's taxes, or cut in other programs that impact most Americans so that all Americans can benefit from the national defense they seem to treasure so much.

DO Americans genuinely treasure the Military?

I'm sure they would when faced with a clear/present and well articulated threat.

What would most people choose?

A new iPhone with unlimited calling/data every year

or

A better funded and more capable/flexible military to counter present/future threats

When it comes to belt tightening time, do most people REALLY care(beyond the sycophantic support the troops vaneer) about anything beyond clearly articulated and perceived existential threats?

I think some do...even many do........but do enough?

[cat in the hat]

Originally Posted by Pete

"...And the lawmakers also signaled that they want service members to play a role in deciding what pay and benefits cuts they’ll see in the future, proposing a study that would ask troops to rank their benefits in value and importance — for example, whether they value health care and bigger paychecks over retirement pay and housing allowances..."

Of course a young troop in the barracks will say bigger paycheck. What do they care about health care benefits, retirement check or the commissary.

Talk about driving a wedge into the opposition...

Single serve members are more likely to say do away with family programs.

[caretaker]

Originally Posted by Flagg

DO Americans genuinely treasure the Military?

I think some do...even many do........but do enough?

Is the issue do Americans value the Military or is it that the Military is being taking advantage of because they are unable to defend themselves?

In general, men have unlimited wants but limited resources available to satisfy those wants. If one can get a service at bargain rate it allows one to do more with their remaining limited resources. Brand me a pessimist if you will but it is my belief that those without a voice are taken advantage of. What recourse does the Military have for dissent if allocated resources are insufficient to perform their assigned task? Can they terminate the contact? Can they enter into a collective bargaining agreement and go on strike? Who is their voice? Relying on the American people and their elected officials to assign a higher priority to those who provide an essential services has not worked out as it should.

How do we allow Congress to enjoy an automatic pay increase every year and yet can't seem to find sufficient funds to take care of those who have displayed the best traits of human nature? How is this even remotely acceptable?

[Basenshukai]

Originally Posted by Flagg

DO Americans genuinely treasure the Military?

I never wrote that Americans treasure the "military". I stated "national defense", and stated it that way for a reason.

You can hate cops, but treasure having the security that police forces can bring to a neighborhood.

You can loath the military, but treasure the blanket of security it brings over a country that can project death to someone's backyard thousands of miles away.

Most people enjoy a nice stake, but would cringe at the sight of how the cow gets slaughtered.

[Basenshukai]

Originally Posted by caretaker

Is the issue do Americans value the Military or is it that the Military is being taking advantage of because they are unable to defend themselves?

In general, men have unlimited wants but limited resources available to satisfy those wants. If one can get a service at bargain rate it allows one to do more with their remaining limited resources. Brand me a pessimist if you will but it is my belief that those without a voice are taken advantage of. What recourse does the Military have for dissent if allocated resources are insufficient to perform their assigned task? Can they terminate the contact? Can they enter into a collective bargaining agreement and go on strike? Who is their voice? Relying on the American people and their elected officials to assign a higher priority to those who provide an essential services has not worked out as it should.

How do we allow Congress to enjoy an automatic pay increase every year and yet can't seem to find sufficient funds to take care of those who have displayed the best traits of human nature? How is this even remotely acceptable?

You have encapsulated the issue much better than I have.