whirlwind Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 crazy... Uncle Sam's military payroll is enormous. According to the DOD, 1.4 million men and women are on active duty. In most locations these uniformed personnel work alongside DOD civilian employees, of which there are 654,000. Together, that is about as many people as there are working for Wal-Mart, General Motors and Ford Motor Co. combined, says the DOD. As long as checks are being cut, add another 2 million issued to retirees, dependents and those on disability. And that is only the core workforce. Another 1.2 million serve in National Guard and Reserve units. Missing from the tally are the millions of workers employed by the dozen or so major defense contractors, hundreds of subcontractors, and thousands of vendors and consultants. Some economists have suggested that the DOD money stream is so broad and deep, the prosperity America enjoyed in the latter half of the 20th century rested entirely upon a "permanent war economy." taken from: PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 Most of these people are underpaid and live at or near the poverty level. I think you don't fully comprehend what it is you are reading when you look at irrelevant DATA. http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/pay/2004paytable.pdf So an E5 (sergeant) with SIX years time in service makes a little over 2K a MONTH base pay. This is the same guy who might work 7 days a week/ 24 hours a day in conditions far harsher than the toughest expedition. Cold, wet, hungry, tired. Hot, sick, homesick. In danger constantly, or bored out of their minds. Week after week, day after day. Subjected to rules and regulations that would drive a prison inmate to murder. But hey wirlwind. You've got it all figured out from where you're at. I shit on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 And there's Bush sending that Sargent in harms way, while cutting his pay, so that Bush's friends the Saudis and Haliburton inc. etc can get rich...Great shit Hey Mike, would you be psyched to be out there saving the world if you were only getting $2k a month. I think you would be singing a different tune. I don't know you, but I bet you don't buy this "God and Country" bullshit. And I think I hear you saying that you want recognition for the sacrifices that these enlisted soldiers are making. But why are you supporting this war when it is with the wrong people. Religious Fundamentalists attacked us, not the oil rich country of Iraq. Obviously this is a pissing contest to assert our dominance in the region. Why the fuck not take over Saudi Arabia...? Every finger points in that direction...Friend or Foe Mike? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 I already served 8 years for less money than that, AND I initially came over here for less than 4K a month. I think it's important to experience the world rather than let it be dictated to us by Fox News. My initial assignments were dangerous and poorly supported. It was very wild west over here a year ago, but I think overall less dangerous than now. Later, I had a high level US official ask me one time why I came over here. I turned around looked him in the eye and said "I came here to bang heads with Arabs". Does that answer your questions? A need to understand firsthand, and a strong desire to settle a score. And sure, a lot of that G&C shit was lost on me a long long time ago. Idealism is something for the young and naive. I understand the bullshit, but I've chosen this path for personal reasons. Saudi will eventually fall, but I doubt the US will be the root cause of it. I think we have just seen the veil of foreign policy pulled back for the time being and everyone is shocked by what's been going on behind the curtains. I for one am tired. 14 months of this shit and it's just getting more dangerous every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 Double post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 So if the military is that poorly paid the comparison in wirlwind's original post to WalMart is even more accurate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronB Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 I already served 8 years for less money than that Are you saying you were in for 8 years, and never made E5? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 I hear you Mike. I think what most of us are reacting to is the lies that bring us here, to this situation. In a free society information should be up front and we can decide what is important and what action to take. No one likes being lied to and that engenders distrust. I appreciate your honest reasons for being there. Aaron, that is uncool! I'll gladly hold you down while Mr. Damerung gives you a wood shampoo.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted August 22, 2004 Author Share Posted August 22, 2004 um i guess u guys missed the point entirely, that hole paragraph was an exerpt from popula mechnics for one, and i was just shareing it becuase i though it was intresting, the shear amount of people that are dependent on the militarys paycheck, and especally the refernce to the fack that some people think that the 90's- prosparity was due to military action, ie the perment war economy. due to the fact that so many people depend on a pay check or pension, or military contract as there income. maybe you should read the hole article from the link. and try not to slander me with your emotional ties for the subject in which i never claimed to know about in the first place. also intesrting to note what billygoat was saying about Bush's military pay and pension cuts, due to the number of people this effects, it will all trickle down and eventually effect everyone in the US execpt the top 1% that already own 40% of the nations wealth. WHO HERE STILL WANTS TO VOTE FOR BUSH? thats who should be shit on not me, but thanks for the offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 I understand your point wirlwind, but keep in mind that the military economy does far more than simply provide defense (or offense in the case of pre-emptive strikes). I collect a DOD paycheck. My job is in environmental protection, specifically of wetlands and waterbodies. My agency (Army Corp of Engineers) also does quite a bit of public infrastructure work such as canals, flood control projects, harbor and channel dredging, etc. DOD also funds technology and medical research. Your GPS runs off military developed tech and satellites. I own stock in a Portland based biotech firm that recently received some DOD grant money to continue their clinical trials and development of a West Nile treatment among others. My point is, it's not as simple as some numbers on a page. We do spend a shitload on defense. Our defense spending is typically put at somewhere between 35%-45% of the total global defense spending, depending on which source you look at. I'm on a military base 5-6 days a week. The soldiers are not poor. They are not living below the poverty line by any stretch of the imagination. A freshly minted PFC makes $16,880 base salary. Add in up to $50k for college costs, subsidized housing, healthcare, food, clothing, entertainment, recreation, PX priviledges, retirement benefits, etc and their income is alot closer to $30k if they choose to attend college after their committment, and at least $20k if they don't. Thats for a new E3. $20k is not alot of money, and they do work under alot of bullshit rules and hard conditions. Try standing outside at -25F pulling gate duty if you have any doubts, and that's not even taking combat or the possibility of combat into account. Nevertheless, show me another employer that will give a job with similar perks to virtually any young person to walk into their office. We need to find ways to cut military spending and get more for the money, but by streamlining the bureacracy, not having fewer troops, paying them less, or cutting their benefits. Imagine growing up poor in a small rural town. WTF are you going to do if you can't afford to go to college or are just not cut out for college, and there is no industry in your area. This is a common situation, and one reason the lower classes always bear more of the burden in fighting wars. Having the military as an option is important. They provide character building, discipline, teach skills, and give opportunity to young people who would otherwise be mired in a situation with no future. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but: I find it ironic that the same lefty liberals who are ready to give entitlement handouts to all the "disadvantaged" are the same who push to cut troop size and defense spending. Personally, I'd rather give someone a meaningful job that teaches the practical, technical, and life skills while providing a service to our country, than to give them a handout for doing nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 Will, I think Whirlwind is just saying "WOW" that's a lot of people dependent on the payroll. I did not catch him saying we should down size. In fact I think he was pointing out that Bush is lowering pay and benefits to the soldiers and I say he is outsourcing the jobs and money to his friends in the private sector. Maybe Peter Puget or J_b can help me here, but I think the total "defense" spending you are a part of is roughly 50% of the national budget. Social programs are only about 2%. So don't worry about a bunch of unworthy poor people getting a whole lot of the pie... This defense spending benefits society as a whole. I agree with that. This current war, however, does not. social "handouts" also benefit society. They are like Insurance. People fall into bad situations and the idea is to help them out of it and become productive citizens. Sure, there are a few that abuse the system, but I would bet the large majority do not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted August 22, 2004 Author Share Posted August 22, 2004 i'm actually indiffernt about cutting military personel, i do agree with cutting some of the costs if posible, but i know the military is a godd option for alot of younger people to get on the job skills starting with no experiance. i my self have often though about going into the service and am curently debateing the option once again. and i must not understand somthing because although you post is way more detailed than mine, it seems at least to me,that it more or less suports the idea i was trying to get across, ok i guess i'm not surewhat DOD is but you hit on the basic point that i was trying to make about the number of people that look to the DOD/ military to make ends meet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted August 22, 2004 Author Share Posted August 22, 2004 pretty much thanks BG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Mil spending as a percent of GDP is around 4%. As a percent of the total budget is around 15%. As a percent of the discretionary spending (which does not include social security and govt debt service...huge chunks of the total budget, among other things) it is around 50%. On the solider's pay issue: A good look at military compensation, from the CBO. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4978&sequence=0 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that in 2002 (the most recent year for which comprehensive data are available), the average active-duty service member received a compensation package worth about $99,000. Wirlwind, this is obvious advice but I'll say it anyway: wait until after the election if you are seriously considering enlisting, the outcome might change your mind ya know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 this is true and that is what i was thinking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Maybe the military should try and be MORE like WalMart and have greeters for the enemy. Wearing a little blue vest and welcoming them to the war zone and wishing them a happy death and everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 This is not directed at anyone in particular, but: I find it ironic that the same lefty liberals who are ready to give entitlement handouts to all the "disadvantaged" are the same who push to cut troop size and defense spending. Personally, I'd rather give someone a meaningful job that teaches the practical, technical, and life skills while providing a service to our country, than to give them a handout for doing nothing. Ironically a great deal of benifits and pay reduction has come down from the Bush whitehouse. Meanwhile these poor folks are shipped around to fight a war with a poorly defined objective and have their deployments extended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fern Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 It was very wild west over here a year ago, but I think overall less dangerous than now........ I for one am tired. 14 months of this shit and it's just getting more dangerous every day. I don't understand. Do you think things are getting better or worse? Or is it that one type of danger has diminished but a new type is developing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I already served 8 years for less money than that Are you saying you were in for 8 years, and never made E5? No, I'm just saying that the pay grades have been adjusted for inflation. I actually didn't even know I would be paid when I signed on at 17. I was surprised when I had to get an account and set up DD. Fern, yes I am saying it has become more dangerous over here over time. More frequent attacks, better coordinated, better weapons, different groups. There is the hardcore door to door knuckle dragging and then there is the threat of being blown by a car bomb (VBIED), IED, mortar attacks, RPG, rockets, small arms fire, kidnappings, beheadings, etc. It will eventually be quelled. I have no doubt about that, but for right now it's sucking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redoubt Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 14 months of this shit and it's just getting more dangerous every day. It will eventually be quelled. I have no doubt about that...... I'm sure you're correct on the first point. And on the one hand I think you're probably right about the second. On the other hand, however one feels about what we're doing over there, no one will be exactly shocked if we're hearing these same two themes next year, or the year after. "Eventually" is a pretty easy deadline to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fern Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Fern, yes I am saying it has become more dangerous over here over time. More frequent attacks, better coordinated, better weapons, different groups. There is the hardcore door to door knuckle dragging and then there is the threat of being blown by a car bomb (VBIED), IED, mortar attacks, RPG, rockets, small arms fire, kidnappings, beheadings, etc. It will eventually be quelled. I have no doubt about that, but for right now it's sucking. thanks for clarifying. I realize now that I misread what you were saying several times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markinore Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I think we would all agree that all those working for the U.S. in a military capacity, whether uniformed or not, should be financially supported in a way that adequately compensates for their service (to the extent that risking your life can ever be adequately compensated) and allows them to care for their families. My take on the data provided by Wirlwind is not that the overall payroll for the personnel is excessive, but that it is massive. That calls into question whether the American people as a whole benefit from this. If that expenditure is truly required for our defense, that is one thing. On the other hand, if that cost is for the purpose of imperial adventures, as in Iraq, and supporting defense companies profits, that is quite another. To me, that is why the term "war on terror" is absolutely perfect for the Haliburtons of the world. It is vague enough to allow rationalizing the irrational. Unlike WW II or even the Cold War, it can never be definitively won ("Well, we conquered Iraq, but bin Laden's out there somewhere, so we have to spend billions not just on conventional forces, but nuclear weapons, antiballistic missile systems, and everything else some military supplier can come up with."). Of course, to make people willingly pay taxes to pay for that, you have to keep them scared all the time. You have to hype the real dangers, possible dangers, and occasionally fabricated dangers. Then you have to assert simulataneously that the only defense, in addition to massive expenditures, is the Leader. Bush asserts, "America is safer," as his henchmen issue warnings. Kerry would be no better in this regard, incidentally, just smoother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Back in the 50s someined the term "Military Idustrial Complex". Who was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I belive it was Eisenhower, as in President and General, who put that term into the common vernacular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.