|
Grex > Agora41 > #17: How much did the U.S. military spend while you were reading this sentence? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 199 responses total. |
raven
|
|
response 25 of 199:
| 
Mar 24 08:46 UTC 2002 |
re #22
"On any given day, The Army has nearly 125,000 soldiers and 15,000 U.S.
civilians forward-stationed in over 100 countries around the world."
http://www.army.mil/aps/01/page6.htm
Do you want fries with your words you are eating?
Short blurb on this from the Libertarians 1997:
http://archive.lp.org/rel/19970725-military.html
Is this sort of thing a constructive way to spend our money? I think not.
|
klg
|
|
response 26 of 199:
|
Mar 24 14:21 UTC 2002 |
In 2 years the deployment quintupled into 33% more countries??
US Army News release:
"March 8, 1999
U. S. ARMY WEEKLY OPERATIONS UPDATE
The U.S. Army currently has 29,680 soldiers deployed in 73 countries."
|
gull
|
|
response 27 of 199:
|
Mar 24 18:16 UTC 2002 |
Re #24: I'm suggesting that it's inconsistant to argue that soldiers
should get pay raises so they don't have to worry about living within
their means, but people working at McDonalds shouldn't.
|
slynne
|
|
response 28 of 199:
|
Mar 24 19:45 UTC 2002 |
From a free market point of view, the military should only increase
soldier's wages if they have a shortage of soldiers. If they still have
folks willing to do the job at less than a "living wage" it would be a
waste of tax payer money to pay them more.
It is possible that bdh is concerned not so much with the soldier's
welfare but with the type of person who becomes a soldier. If the wages
are increased, more people will want to become soldiers which would
mean that the military could be more picky about whom they accept. I
think military jobs are more demanding than McDonald's jobs (but I
could be wrong, I've never been in the military but my experience with
McDonalds is that pretty much any moron can do that job)
Personally, I dont have a big problem with raising soldier's wages if
that meant that less soldiers were needed. A reduction in military
spending doesnt necessarily mean a reduction in military wages. Is it
possible that our country has more military than we really need?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 29 of 199:
|
Mar 24 20:26 UTC 2002 |
No, I'm not eating my words. And I suspect you won't eat yours, either.
You wrote:
Why does the U.S. have to have soldiers stationed in over 100
countries?
When I question your comment, you refer me to:
On any given day, The Army has nearly 125,000 soldiers and
15,000 U.S. ivilians forward-stationed in over 100 countries
around the world. In FY 000, on a daily average, we deployed
more than 26,000 additional soldiers or operations and military
exercises in 68 countries-from East Timor to igeria to the Balkans.
"Forward-stationed" and "deployed" are similar in meaning, "stationed"
is not. if you're gonna play the game, you have to learn the lingo.
"Stationed" generally means a _permanent_ assignment. "Forward-stationed"
and "deployed" are both _temporary_. Cuba is a permanent station; Bosnia
is not.
You want to argue that we should NOT send troops into East Timor to (try to)
help with the unrest between the Timorans and the rest of Indonesia? Go for
it. After all, we didn't send them in to Rwanda, did we? Some will agree
with you, others won't. But be prepared to make a _REAL_ argument on the
subject. Don't just spout inanities.
On "living wage". Lessee; Mickey D's is advertising what, $7/hr these
days? At forty hours a week, that's $280; four and a half weeks a month
is $1260/month. You have to get promoted to E2 to make $1239/mo. E1 with
less than four months service gets $1023/mo; with more than four months
service $1106/mo. Yeah, working at McD's is a better choice, I'd say.
Should these junior enlisted men be allowed to marry, much less have
children? Probably not. Any more than college students should be allowed
to marry and have children. And you've got as much hope of stopping the
one as you have the other. Less, actually: those who have enlisted are,
by definition, independent. College students can still look to Mommy and
Daddy for help. (And I was very grateful for the help they gave us, too.)
|
raven
|
|
response 30 of 199:
|
Mar 24 21:40 UTC 2002 |
Whether stationed or deployed, the only reason "we" would have soldiers in
100 countries is to maintain a global empire. See:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0319/p01s04-wosc.html
I have no problems with paying soldiers a living wage as long as we
employ fewer of them, deploy them strictly within the bounds of the United
States, and cut the weapons programs like missle defense, the next generation
of howitzers (go a google search for George H. Bush and Carlysile group),
the excesive numbers of new airplanes and tanks, etc that are just pork
for various congresional districts and a form of corporate welfare for
Boeing, etc. If we are cutting welfare to welfare mothers, lets also
cut welfare to Boeing, etc, fair is fair right?
|
oval
|
|
response 31 of 199:
|
Mar 24 22:49 UTC 2002 |
hey joe -- would that person making ~1200/mo also be paying rent, utilities,
transport etc? just curious ..
i would pretty much put working at mcD's as about the same level of emotional
abuse and degredation by 'western reason' as joining the army. any moron could
stand in a trendy soho bag store and talk on the phone to their friends but
they make 15 an hour and get free clothes and shoes.
i'm wondering why no one has soldiers stationed here in the US .. you know
- just to help out - just in case ..
|
russ
|
|
response 32 of 199:
|
Mar 25 00:21 UTC 2002 |
<digression>
Re #27: It is not inconsistent at all. Soldiers work for us,
and many are expected to call it a career; McD's burger-slingers
work for McDonald's, and are expected to call it afternoons and
semesters off from school. If McDonald's has problems finding
qualified workers we'll expect them to offer better compensation
(such as, but not limited to, more money). If the USA has problems
finding qualified soldiers, we do the same.
Sensible people don't think that Washington has to tell McDonald's
how much to pay to keep the drive-through moving; it's their issue,
and simply not relevant to national policy. That's the difference
between McDonald's and the military.
</digression>
|
keesan
|
|
response 33 of 199:
|
Mar 25 01:15 UTC 2002 |
McDonalds probably also does not pay health insurance, or give free dental
care, or a pension, to its $7/hour employees. $1000/month beyond rent,
utilities, food, and medical costs is way more than I have ever earned.
Is it also tax-free? (Is the free housing etc. at least tax-free?).
|
oval
|
|
response 34 of 199:
|
Mar 25 01:16 UTC 2002 |
i know this may be hard to believe, but most people working shit jobs aren't
white burb kids trying to make some money in between semester of college.
there is a reason why they dont have trouble finding 'qualified workers' -
high unemployment rates, shitty/expensive education, etc.
|
i
|
|
response 35 of 199:
|
Mar 25 01:36 UTC 2002 |
Heh. How many $1K/month Marines can you have ready to fight for how
many years a the same cost as a single $1G bomber?
Unfortunately, Marines aren't seen as "jobs" and don't make fat political
contributions.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 36 of 199:
|
Mar 25 02:41 UTC 2002 |
oval, generally speaking, no, they don't have to pay rent or buy food out of
their salaries. And they get an allowance to help maintain their uniforms.
They do have to pay income tax on their salaries. The allowances that
are not taxable are the same ones that are not taxable for civilians:
housing at and for the convenience of the employer, special clothing
maintenance, and food for the convenience of the employer, for instance.
(Thus, McD's employees aren't taxed on the value of the meals they eat.)
If they are married or otherwise have dependents, then they _may_
have permission to live separately and so may get a housing allowance.
(Come to think on it, they can sometimes get permission to live separately
even when they don't have dependents. It depends upon what's available
at the local station and duty requirements.) The amount depends upon
rank and whether they have dependents:
BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING
Pay BAH-II (With BAH-II (Without BAH BAH
Grade Dependent) Dependent) Differential PARTIAL
E-4 484.20 338.40 153.90 8.10
E-3 450.90 332.10 125.70 7.80
E-2 429.60 269.70 168.90 7.20
E-1 429.60 240.60 199.50 6.90
I don't know when the Differential and Partial allowances would be given,
but partial may be a daily rate, for when a person is temporarily assigned
elsewhere.
Unfortunately the full table is a PDF, so it's easier to point you at
the URL, but I don't want to repeat myself; it's up there somewhere.
Raven, if you _really_ think Bosnia and East Timor are about "global
empire", you are a bigger idiot than your previous posts have shown you
to be be. Your ignorance is above my poor ability to illuminate.
|
raven
|
|
response 37 of 199:
|
Mar 25 02:42 UTC 2002 |
re #32 Beady in 1999 over 25% of workers made less than poverty level
wages.
" * The number of jobs where wages were below what a worker would
need to support a family of four above the poverty line also grew between
1979 and 1999. In 1999, 26.8% of the workforce earned poverty-level wages,
an increase from 23.7% in 1979.
This is not just high school and college kids we are talking about, in the
service economy famalies are trying to make on such a pittance and
failing. So much for conservative family values, eh? Or was that rich
family values. If you are Enron with your hand in the cookie jar or
Boeing sucking on the military industrial tit you are gold, but lord help
you in you try to make an honest buck in the service sector, or in the
army for that matter. As I said I have no objection for a living wage for
those who do serve in the military, my objection is to wasteful weapons
systems and global empire.
|
jazz
|
|
response 38 of 199:
|
Mar 25 02:56 UTC 2002 |
It's tough to reconcile a living wage with the tendency - especially
in light of the WTO - of our corporations to take business elsewhere if the
local labour costs are too expensive. Even if by some legislative miracle
we discourage that, other nations' companies will probably do the same. It's
not as simple as enacting a living wage law.
Though America does have the longest working hours and the greatest
deviation between the poor and rich of any first world nation, from what I
understand.
|
russ
|
|
response 39 of 199:
|
Mar 25 03:13 UTC 2002 |
Re #34: Either those people are only in those jobs temporarily,
(in which case a permanent solution is unwarranted) or they made
the error of taking on greater responsibilities than their skills
were able to support.
If you arbitrarily increase the wage to a "living wage", all you
are going to do is:
1.) Price the product out of the market, so that the people
who now buy it cannot afford it. A product with no
buyers does not get made, and requires no one to make it.
2.) Create an incentive to replace labor with machinery, which
eliminates the unskilled labor you are supposedly helping.
(It employs people like me at ten times their wages.)
Either way those people are out of work, and they are even worse
off than before because there are fewer entry points to the labor
force. What they really need is better skills. There is no
substitute; trying to dictate wage rates creates worse problems
in the long run, not the least of which is the perverse incentive
to take what low-skill jobs still exist instead of improving skills.
Re #35: I doubt that you could find a million people willing to
be Marines. Without the close-air support of those billion-dollar
bombers, you might not be able to find ten thousand. Besides, what's
best for the country: jobs for people carrying rifles, or jobs for
people building airplanes?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 40 of 199:
|
Mar 25 03:57 UTC 2002 |
The Marine Corps is somewhere around 170,000; at it's largest, it was maybe
a half-million. And it doesn't use billion-dollar planes (except possibly
the Osprey). But I haven't priced an F-18 recently.
The Army, now, tends to be a bit larger. And the Air Force likes expensive
airplanes.
|
jp2
|
|
response 41 of 199:
|
Mar 25 04:24 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 42 of 199:
|
Mar 25 04:49 UTC 2002 |
I've gotten that impression.
|
other
|
|
response 43 of 199:
|
Mar 25 05:21 UTC 2002 |
Neat concept, low-bidder execution?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 44 of 199:
|
Mar 25 05:39 UTC 2002 |
No, I don't think so. It appears to be a problem with the basic design. The
Harrier demonstrated the concept with jets, but apparently it just doesn't
translate to props. The few reports I've seen indicate the 'transition' is
the sticking point.
|
raven
|
|
response 45 of 199:
|
Mar 25 07:24 UTC 2002 |
re #39 Sweden seems to do fine without wage slavery, and is a leading producer
of cars and cell phones among other things. Now I NOT saying we should
adopt democratic socialism like Sweden but I think it does show that there
is emperical evidence that your theory is full of holes.
Joe the reason the international community had to intervene in East Timor
was that the Carter administration gave Suharto the go ahead to invade
East Timor and use U.S. weapons to slaughter hundreds of thousands of
people. So much for the Carter "the humanitarian," president. Carter
and Brezinski (sp?) also used Pakistan's SIS secret service to train
the mujahadeen (who later became the Taliban and Al Queda) to "give
Russia it's own Vietnam. Perhaps you should read some history books before
you engage in slander.
|
raven
|
|
response 46 of 199:
|
Mar 25 07:40 UTC 2002 |
Here is an article by Chomsky that shows just how lousy your example of
East Timor was, and how complicit the U.S. was in the slaughter that took
place:
http://www.motherjones.com/east_timor/comment/chomsky.html
|
grimaldi
|
|
response 47 of 199:
|
Mar 25 07:45 UTC 2002 |
Isn't Noam Chomsky a looney.. Anyhow.. Keep goin folks.. and I'll keep working
to keep you safe in your hidey holes.. <grumbles and goes off to press his
army uniform>
|
raven
|
|
response 48 of 199:
|
Mar 25 08:26 UTC 2002 |
re #47 Ah that's what I love a substantive critique from the right showing
democratic discourse is alive and kicking in America. With such closely
argued insight, you must have been a philosophy major, right?
|
jazz
|
|
response 49 of 199:
|
Mar 25 13:39 UTC 2002 |
Noam Chomsky is the founding father of modern lingustics, the Boaz of
the field if you will. He may have a batting average, like all people who
speculate, but his batting average, overall, is quite good, and his
credentials are impressive to say the least.
|