It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress report says military paid more than civilians... BS!!!

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by theendisnear69
 


Yeah yeah yeah. Blah blah blah. Same talking point crap from every liberal stooge.
The military GI does not decide what the mission is nor how it is executed. The Commander in Chief does. And that is.........




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by pianopraze
 


The military should not be paid.

There is no reason to pay a soldier anything.

If some nation is a real threat to our existence, people would be willing to fight against it for free.



So what about when the nation is not in danger, who should be the ready force???
bums that that sit on the corner with a gun tryin to get food, waiting for the country to be threatened so they can get on a plane and off the street...

they get payed nothing while other people are living it up cuz they play a game on national tv, or develope video games to turn more of our population into lazy slobs or whatever other pretty much useless job they have.

school teachers, docters, military, and police should be the highest paid people in any country. I guess farmers and those who raise cattle and such as well.
everyone besides what i just named is disposable, the country could survive without them...

edit on 1-2-2011 by iSHRED because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


From the mouth of someone who has never served.
I think that teachers should work for free. If the prime goal is to better the general public, then it is their civic duty to do so.



I served 4 years in the US Navy.

I now realize that a paid military is not there to defend our freedoms, they are there as mercenaries.

I joined the Navy because I wanted money for college. That was not a valid reason for me to engage in warfare.

Paying people to engage in warfare leads to Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and the World Wars.

The people who fought in the American Revolutionary War were largely unpaid actors. There were a few professional soldiers, but the majority took up arms free of charge because they felt their liberty was in danger.

There is no need to pay soldiers.

People will fight on their own if their is a real threat to their liberty.

Further, there is no need to pay teachers out of public tax dollars either. Without publicly funded schools, people would pay to send their kids to a private school with the money they save in taxes.
edit on 1-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Ok, so I stand corrected as to you not serving. Sorry about that.
The rest is still BS.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Ok, so I stand corrected as to you not serving. Sorry about that.
The rest is still BS.


Iraq, Afghanistan, and Viet Nam are BS.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No, you are BS.
The idea that since the Military GI is paid, therefore provides the path for wars is crap.
Military members deserve to get paid for their work, plain and simple.
Even without the military, wars would still go on.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No, you are BS.
The idea that since the Military GI is paid, therefore provides the path for wars is crap.
Military members deserve to get paid for their work, plain and simple.
Even without the military, wars would still go on.


So what you are telling me is that if China invaded the US, you wouldn't help fight unless you were paid.

Right?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Congress couldn't find its own a$$ if the directions were in their back pockets.

How about they have a great big helping of stfu and cut their pay and benefits instead? Oh I forget: they feel justified in voting themselves payraises regularly, no matter how p*ss-poor their performance.

S & F

edit on 1-2-2011 by mydarkpassenger because: snafu



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No, you are BS.
The idea that since the Military GI is paid, therefore provides the path for wars is crap.
Military members deserve to get paid for their work, plain and simple.
Even without the military, wars would still go on.


So what you are telling me is that if China invaded the US, you wouldn't help fight unless you were paid.

Right?



You know there is a big difference between the 2. The fact that you are trying to bait me into that argument tells me 1 major thing.
1. You are just looking for an argument for arguments sake.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No, you are BS.
The idea that since the Military GI is paid, therefore provides the path for wars is crap.
Military members deserve to get paid for their work, plain and simple.
Even without the military, wars would still go on.


So what you are telling me is that if China invaded the US, you wouldn't help fight unless you were paid.

Right?



You know there is a big difference between the 2. The fact that you are trying to bait me into that argument tells me 1 major thing.
1. You are just looking for an argument for arguments sake.


I see by your answer that I've won this debate.

If you say no, then you are an anti-American wussy.

If you say yes, then your argument that we need to pay soldiers is refuted.



edit on 1-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Anyone with the gall to say soldiers make more money than civilians, should be shipped to Afghanistan for at least one tour. Not only will the sphincters have to worry about their own survival and that of their mates, if they have a families to support back in the world, they're going to be worrying about their survival on a military pay. Go to any town with a nearby military base and you are sure to find full time soldiers working part time civilian jobs, if any are available. If the military pays so well, why would a young soldier having survived a year of operations in the living hell of a combat zone, be working behind the counter of a fast food joint, or at the end of day change from his military clothes into those of a security guard for that same restaurant? Since the military pays so well, he must be working out of sheer boredom, and not for the minimum wage that part time jobs usually pay. Cut back the fat-cat salaries made by that useless bunch known as politicians, to the levels of our military men and women, and I bet they couldn't afford to live off them.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No, you are BS.
The idea that since the Military GI is paid, therefore provides the path for wars is crap.
Military members deserve to get paid for their work, plain and simple.
Even without the military, wars would still go on.


So what you are telling me is that if China invaded the US, you wouldn't help fight unless you were paid.

Right?



You know there is a big difference between the 2. The fact that you are trying to bait me into that argument tells me 1 major thing.
1. You are just looking for an argument for arguments sake.


I see by your answer that I've won this debate.

If you say no, then you are an anti-American wussy.

If you say yes, then your argument that we need to pay soldiers is refuted.



edit on 1-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Actually, no you have not.

My question to you is, how is the weather? Who do yo think will win the Superbowl?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Reply to post by macman
 


That $1467 is for an E1 with under 2 years service, basically someone in boot camp. After training they are advanced to E2 and make $1644.90. Still, not much, but that is only base pay, that does not include basic allowance for housing(BAH) or basic allowance for subsistence(BAS). Both of which are not taxable!

Also, you have to add in Medical and dental benefits. Tricare is one of the best medical programs around!

Our soldiers and sailors are doing well and most are able to set money aside in TSP (401k).

Hope this adds to the discussion.
Feltrick


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You do understand that France sent professional soldiers to back us up in the Revolutionary war, right? The myth of the great minute man fighting in the shadows is only part of the story.

In Vietnam the Soviets and China poured billions of dollars in financial and military support in to the north. In Korea China backed the North. In Afghanistan we supported the opposition forces. Now those opposition forces are backed with money and soldiers from Iran and Pakistan.

Through out history wars have commonly been fought by the professional soldier.
edit on 1-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Do you realize that by turning such a complex issue in to an either or proposition you are engaging in a rhetorical fallacy? It is actually called the either/or fallacy in most undergraduate composition courses.

According to the Undergraduate Writing Center at The University of Texas Austin

Rhetorical fallacies, or fallacies of argument, don’t allow for the open, two-way exchange of ideas upon which meaningful conversations depend. Instead, they distract the reader with various appeals instead of using sound reasoning.



Either/Or Choices reduce complicated issues to only two possible courses of action.


So, instead of claiming to win the debate you need to re examine your method of debate.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Feltrick
Reply to post by macman
 


That $1467 is for an E1 with under 2 years service, basically someone in boot camp. After training they are advanced to E2 and make $1644.90. Still, not much, but that is only base pay, that does not include basic allowance for housing(BAH) or basic allowance for subsistence(BAS). Both of which are not taxable!

Also, you have to add in Medical and dental benefits. Tricare is one of the best medical programs around!

Our soldiers and sailors are doing well and most are able to set money aside in TSP (401k).

Hope this adds to the discussion.
Feltrick


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Yes, the amounts you posted are correct, per month.
BAH/BAQ are for those members that are married and live off base, or for single NCO's that live off base. Your basic single GI does not get BAH/BAQ.
Health care is provided free of charge for the GI, family members are still paid for from the GI.
To say Tricare is the best is like saying a cactus is good to hug.
Tricare sucks. Most solutions for the GI from sickcall is Motrin. The GI does not get a sick day, unless the doctor gives them a pass.

If you compare a GI to a HS kid working at Burger King? Then yeah, the GI is doing well. But when you figure that the GI does not get to quit if they don't like the job, the Burger King guy is not subject to recall 24/7 365, and that the GI is responsible for not only their job as a fighter, but also is say an electrician and possibly secondary job say fire watch, there is no comparison.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Do you realize that by turning such a complex issue in to an either or proposition you are engaging in a rhetorical fallacy?



Actually bro, he is just asking a bro a question.

That bro dodged the question because he didn't have the courage to answer it and prove mnemeth1 right.

Peace out.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Do you realize that by turning such a complex issue in to an either or proposition you are engaging in a rhetorical fallacy?



Actually bro, he is just asking a bro a question.

That bro dodged the question because he didn't have the courage to answer it and prove mnemeth1 right.

Peace out.




Courage was nothing to do with it.
Makes no sense arguing with someone who is merely looking to pick a fight. Especially on the internet.
I will answer questions and debate all day long. But, when I see the righting on the wall, I know how to react.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Actually what he did was try to break a complex issue down in to a single question with two answers that actually prove nothing.

I would fight if China invades. However, that does not negate the fact that professional soldiers that are paid to train and study war make for a better resistance force. A professional military that stands at the ready and is well trained is much more effective than a group of guerillas more often than not.

What he did was ignore the complexity of the issue to ask a question and suppose illogical results from an either or answer.

Doctors volunteer to go help in developing areas every day. That doesn't mean the people they help wouldn't be better served if they had full time professional medical care. The same applies to soldiers fighting an invading force. The volunteers help, but not nearly as much as the professional full time warrior.

Volunteers do not negate the need for paid professionals. Paid professionals do not mean that you must have wars of agression.

ETA:
He also says that answering no means you are an anti-American wussy. What about dedicated pacifist? What about those that are physically incapable of fighting?

Do you not see how he has tried to reduce multi faceted issues in to simple yes no answers? Do you not see how he supposed reading of the results are actually illogical at their base.

I guess that stuff doesn't matter if it supports your view.

edit on 1-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


There is no complex issue.

Stating that wars have been fought mostly by professional soldiers only makes my argument stronger.

We would not be fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq if our military was unpaid.

Yet we would still have adequate defenses against invasion since the machinery of war would still exist, along with our 65 million privately armed citizens.

The way you prevent needless wars from being fought is to make war something that people only engage in when they feel their life and liberty is at stake.

If people truly feel that their life and liberty are at stake, they will not need any pay to motivate them.



edit on 1-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join