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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (53244)	7/20/2005 11:51:25 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Military Over-Extension In Iraq Causes Recruiting Desperation Tjanks to GW invading and occupaying Iraq without a plan -- Uncle Sam wants you – even if you’re 42 years old By Rick Maze Times staff writer The Defense Department quietly asked Congress on Monday to raise the maximum age for military recruits to 42 for all branches of the service. Under current law, the maximum age to enlist in the active components is 35, while people up to age 39 may enlist in the reserves. By practice, the accepted age for recruits is 27 for the Air Force, 28 for the Marine Corps and 34 for the Navy and Army, although the Army Reserve and Navy Reserve sometimes take people up to age 39 in some specialties. The Pentagon’s request to raise the maximum recruit age to 42 is part of what defense officials are calling a package of “urgent wartime support initiatives” sent to Congress Monday night prior to a Tuesday hearing of the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee. At that hearing, David S.C. Chu, under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said he felt the military’s recent problems with recruiting were improving, but that additional incentives would help. Chu mentioned the age change in passing during the hearing but gave no other details, such as whether any of the services were seriously considering recruiting 42-year-olds. Most of the initiatives in the package were previously requested by the Bush administration as part of the 2006 defense budget, which is pending before Congress. They include raising the maximum re-enlistment bonus to $90,000; maximum hardship duty pay to $750 a month; special pay and incentive bonuses for nuclear qualified officers to $30,000; assignment incentive pay to $3,000; and increasing accession and affiliation bonuses for reservists. The request, not yet approved by the White House, also asks lawmakers to revise some benefits proposals already before Congress. For example, the Bush administration originally asked Congress to increase enlistment bonuses to $30,000, but the Pentagon now wants bonuses of up to $40,000. The administration also asked for an Army-only test of a $1,000 referral bonus that would be paid to current soldiers if they get someone to enter the Army and make it through basic and advanced training. Now, the Pentagon wants that payment to be $2,500. The request also includes a new Army initiative that officials are calling the Army Home Ownership program. It would set aside money for new recruits that could be used to buy a home at the end of an enlistment, an idea that Army officials believe will help convince parents and other “adult influencers” of service-age youths about the benefits of joining the military. Lawmakers are sympathetic to the need to do more. Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., said he is willing to look at new pay-and-benefits initiatives, although he personally believes that what the Pentagon needs is an increase in personnel to cut the workload on active and reserve service member. Rep. Vic Snyder of Arkansas, the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, also vowed to help. “Recruitment is a challenge right now,” Snyder said. “Both the military and Congress are working on solutions, but I expect these challenges will be with us for some time. Military service is honorable and can be a real growing opportunity for a young man or woman.”

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (53244)	7/20/2005 1:09:02 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Example Of Typical Newsmax, Wash Times, CNS deliberate LIE (* This is the same thing they do with hundreds of stories, blatant dishonest propaganda smears) Wash. Times falsely claimed that democrat Paul Begala said that "Republicans want to kill him and his children to preserve tax cuts for the rich" Washington Times columnist Greg Pierce stated in a July 18 column that CNN political commentator and former Clinton aide Paul Begala said that "Republicans want to kill him and his children to preserve tax cuts for the rich" at a recent Campus Progress conference. But that's not what he said, as an audio recording of Begala's remarks shows and Campus Progress has noted. It is clear from the context of his remarks that Begala was stating that terrorists "want to kill me and my children if they can." Here's what Begala actually said (audio clip available here, courtesy of Campus Progress) at the July 13 Campus Progress National Student Conference: BEGALA: Yet, we sit back and allow George W. Bush and our Republican friends to pull out 9-11 like a cheap handgun in a bar fight. Okay? "9-11." There's a drought in the Midwest -- "9-11." The deficit's up -- "9-11." You know? But I think we need to fight them on that. I think, frankly, they did a piss-poor job of defending us, and their strategy was always, "We'll fight them over there so we don't fight them here." Well, guess what? [Osama] bin Laden didn't get the memo. He wants to fight us here as well, as we saw in London last week. And so, their theory is: We can't really do everything to protect our country because we have to cut taxes for the rich. And so, it -- they want to kill us, particularly in this city and New York and some other places. I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit. I had friends on that plane, this is deadly serious to me -- they want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit. You know, that is bullshit national defense, and we should say that. Pierce's column echoed a July 15 Cybercast News Service (CNS) article on Begala's comments by correspondent Jered Ede. From Pierce's July 18 Washington Times "Inside Politics" column: Mr. Begala, who was participating in a panel discussion, created a stir when he declared that Republicans had done a "poor job of defending" the United States, CNSNews.com reports. Republicans, he added, "want to kill us." He continued, "I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit" on September 11. "I had friends on that plane. This is deadly serious to me. "They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Mr. Begala said. Conservative website NewsMax.com reprinted Ede's CNS article, and NewsMax columnist Geoff Metcalf repeated the claim in a July 18 column. Several conservative bloggers, including syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin, also repeated the claim.