Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (442911)	8/14/2003 2:18:43 PM
From: Red Heeler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

*The extra pay is gratuitous.* Family separation allowances Imminent danger pay Link: sfgate.com CC

To: one_less who wrote (442911)	8/14/2003 2:26:42 PM
From: Red Heeler	Respond to of 769667

*Their needs are paid for.* cnn.com CC

To: one_less who wrote (442911)	8/14/2003 2:35:48 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Jewell, re: >>"Is it your position that we should spend more on the troops? Their needs are paid for. The extra pay is gratuitous." Did you really think this out or is this a knee jerk "support Bush" reaction? Let's work it through. Why should we up the hazardous duty pay and family allowance for our troops overseas during this Iraqi occupation? Why shouldn't we? Remember that it's all about competing interests for the dollars we have. Aren't there things that we're spending a couple of hundred million a year on that you see as less deserving than these funds? If you're really objective you'll analyze this in terms of fairness among competing interests for limited dollars, efficiency in keeping an all-volunteer army, and the importance of keeping up morale among men and women that are having a rough time. Remember, despite the preconceptions of many among the Bush elite, the men and women who go to war are human beings with their own thoughts, dreams and pride. If you treat them like pawns in a game of kings, they will know it and you can expect their performance to suffer. The Bush people have shown their disdain for the character, pride and resolve of the Iraqi population but this breaks new ground. I suspect this is yet another failure of the Bush administration's top people to understand average Americans. We've certainly done our share to promote that disdain by swallowing every doubletalk rationale they've thrown at us but when it comes to this kind of disrespect, I don't believe our people will ignore it so easily. I believe that if he persists in this path he will learn that America meant it when it got behind our troops. After all, they are us even if they aren't the "them" that constitute the powerful men in and behind the Bush administration.

To: one_less who wrote (442911)	8/14/2003 3:42:37 PM
From: gerard mangiardi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Gratuitous? Tell me would you switch jobs with them. Or is what they are doing of such trivial importance that they don't deserve anything but a pay cut?

To: one_less who wrote (442911)	8/14/2003 3:56:58 PM
From: nolimitz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

re: The extra pay is gratuitous. What part of pay cut don't you understand. Congress authorized this retroactive to 2002. Now the Pentagon, whose BOSS is GWB doesn't want to extend it. They can spend 1 billion a week on Iraq, but not 300 mil a yr to provide fro the troops? Some support!