where i agree with the dems

[I B Hankering]

[quote=Mazomaniac;976475]Cops and firemen "put on the uniform" and put their lives up for it every day (unlike the vast majority of the military who never come in harms way any time during their entire careers). [quote]

What source are you quoting? See below -

Again, firemen do not go into every fire. Sometimes they stand off and keep the fire from spreading. Service members do not have that option.

BTW “The starting salary for a San Francisco firefighter is now over $70,000, and cops start anywhere between $75,000 and $101,000. In 2007, Mayor Gavin Newsom negotiated a generous union contract with both the Police Officers and the Firefighters Union for his re-election – that gave each group 23% raises over four years.” [June 2009]

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=7083

September 19, 2009
Since September 11, 2001, more than 1.9 million U.S. service members have deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, or support operations overseas -- most of them once, many twice, a few three times or more. Of that total, half come from a single service: the Army.

From a historical perspective, the remarkable point is how modest that growth is. With about 550,000 soldiers on active duty today, the regular Army is just 14.6 percent larger than it was in September 2001. That is well below Cold War levels and barely more than one-third the 1968 Vietnam-era peak of 1.5 million.

http://nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-army-s-growing-pains-20090919?mrefid=site_search

Who’s doing what – June 2008
Data compiled by HRC between Oct. 1, 2001, and March 1 shows that 63.6 percent of active-duty soldiers had deployment history, 9.2 percent had pending deployment orders, 7.4 percent were in basic training and 1.7 percent were unavailable to deploy because of medical, legal or other circumstances.

Another 11.5 percent of the active-duty population was listed as recruiters or drill sergeants; in transit, training or some other hold status; or in operational units that may have just redeployed and have no current deployment orders.

The remaining 6.7 percent of soldiers — about 35,000 active-duty troops — are eligible for reassignment to operational units or for an individual replacement requirement. They work in non-operational units, largely under organizations such as Training and Doctrine Command or the Pentagon.

Deployment numbers will never reach a 100 percent rate, according to HRC officials, because of the constantly shifting nature of the Army’s population. That includes growth of the force, which is programmed to reach 547,000 by the end of fiscal 2010, and the loss of soldiers who leave the Army at a rate of about 80,000 each year, taking their deployment history with them.”

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/06/army_deployequity_060708w/

Here is a 2007 snapshot of the current state of 41 combat brigades and three Cavalry Regiments in the active Army.
■Of the Army’s 44 combat brigades today, all but the First Brigade of the Second Infantry Division, which is permanently based in South Korea, have served at least one tour. Of the remaining 43:
– 12 Brigades have had one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan

– 20 Brigades have had two tours in Iraq or Afghanistan

– 9 Brigades with three tours in Iraq or Afghanistan

– 2 Brigades with four tours in Iraq or Afghanistan

■Army policy recommends that after 12 months of deployment in a war zone, combat troops should come home for 24 months for recuperation and retraining before returning to combat. The Army has been forced to violate this policy many times.
■Army policy recommends that troops return home after 12 months of deployment in a war zone. Due to overextension, the Army has been forced to violate this policy many times.
■Because each brigade has ongoing rotations of individual troops, the fact that a given brigade has deployed three or four times does not necessarily mean that a particular soldier has also deployed that many times. Nonetheless, the number of troops that have served in Iraq—and who have served more than one tour—is staggering:
– 1.4 million military (Army and other service) troops have served in Iraq or Afghanistan; 650,000 Army soldiers have been deployed to these countries

– More than 420,000 troops have deployed more than once; 170,000 Army soldiers have been deployed more than once

– 169,558 Marines have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan more than once

– More than 410,000 National Guard and Reservists have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001, for an average of 18 months per mobilization; of these, more than 84,00 have been deployed more than once.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/readiness_report.html

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Again, firemen do not go into every fire. Sometimes they stand off and keep the fire from spreading. Service members do not have that option.

A huge number of firemen in this country are volunteers. From the US Fire Administration's annual census: HERE

Total number of fire departments in the US: 30,165

Number of departments that are all career firefighters: 2,457

Number of departments that are mostly career firefighters: 1,752

Number of departments that are mostly volunteer firefighters: 5,099

Number of departments that are all volunteer firefighters: 20,857

All of those volunteer firemen get nothing for their service. They don't get retirement. They don't get health care. They don't even get a paycheck. If they're lucky 20% of the community shows up at the annual fireman's picnic and drops $5 into the jar for the widow's and children's fund.

You can talk all you want about big city salaried guys. The majority of fire departments come out and save your ass for free. The fact that they don't even get recognized for this - let alone collect a nice fat pension - is a sad, sad affair.

Since September 11, 2001, more than 1.9 million U.S. service members have deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, or support operations overseas -- most of them once, many twice, a few three times or more. Of that total, half come from a single service: the Army.

OK, let's use those numbers then.

So of the 950,000 Army have deployed into those theaters how many have actually seen combat?

That number is easy - just go HERE and look at the number of combat badges they've given out. (For those not in the know, the Army gives out a Combat Infantryman, Combat Action, or Combat Medical Badge to every soldier who sees actual combat while in the service.)

As you can see from the tables in the link, the total number of combat badges awarded in Afghanistan up through last November was 47,790. The total awarded in Iraq was 122,189.

That means that of 950,000 total deployments into theater only 170,000 of those troops - 18 percent - actually saw combat. And that's just compared to the number who were deployed, many of whom were reservists. If you compare those badges against the total army enlisted the number drops below 10%.

And then there's the Navy and Air Force where the number of people seeing actual combat is WAY below the Army number. Most of the Navy and Air Force servicemen are deployed at sea or at operating bases that are technically in theater but still hundreds or thousands of miles from the nearest bad guy with a gun. You may want to count the cook on an ocean-going tug as being "in combat" because his ship once sailed past the coast of Yemen but that don't count in my book as being in harm's way.

What it amounts to is that somewhere around 5% of the current military has actually been close enough to combat to have heard somebody shooting at them. As I said, a vast majority of the military is never at risk.

Now don't get me wrong, though. I think that every combat badge should come with a $20K check and a 3X pension regardless of time served. I think every Purple Heart should be awarded in front of the guy's brand new house beside the guy's brand new car. I got no issue at all rewarding actual combat service with the respect it deserves. Those returning wounded should be treated like kings.

However, I get more than a little pissed of about things like my friend's dad who I mentioned up above. This guy spent his entire career stateside in a procurement function. His risk of death in the service was from heart attack and stroke - just like me sitting behind my desk.

But unlike me this guy is going to collect nearly $1M in military retirement pay without putting one thin dime into the system. He's also going to get that heart attack treated for free and pay off his mortgage fifteen years before I do since he got a huge deal on his loan through the VA.

I'm sorry, but that's just obscene. That's our tax money going straight into his pocket and I can't think of one thing he did to deserve that kind of windfall. As he likes to put it, he spent his military career "setting the world record for most toilet paper purchased by one person". That's not the kind of service I'm happy to reward with a cool million in retirement cash.

If you join the military and we send you someplace where you actually get shot at then I'm proud to hand you the keys to the kingdom. But if you did nothing but sit on your ass in Virginia Beach and buy toiletries and potatoes for 25 years then screw it. You deserve to pay in and collect social security just like the rest of the pencil pushers in the world. I see nothing special about working a desk job in a uniform versus doing it in a pair of jeans.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

And then there's the Navy and Air Force where the number of people seeing actual combat is WAY below the Army number. Most of the Navy and Air Force servicemen are deployed at sea or at operating bases that are technically in theater but still hundreds or thousands of miles from the nearest bad guy with a gun. You may want to count the cook on an ocean-going tug as being "in combat" because his ship once sailed past the coast of Yemen but that don't count in my book as being in harm's way.

Overly simplistic; all tidy and neat. You, and you alone get to decide what is hazardous duty. By your narrow definition, none of the men serving on any of the following vessels are/were entitled to pay and awards because they were performing their duties in a peacetime setting.

U.S.S. Maine – 1898
U.S.S. Panay – 1937
U.S.S. Arizona – Dec 7, 1941
U.S.S. Oklahoma – Dec 7, 1941
U.S.S. California – Dec 7, 1941
U.S.S. West Virginia – Dec 7, 1941
(and 85 other ships – Dec 7, 1941)
U.S.S. Thresher – 1963
U.S.S. Liberty – 1967
U.S.S. Scorpion – 1968
U.S.S. Mayaguez – 1975
U.S.S. Cole – 2000

Furthermore, this is why I chose to list peacetime incidents in my previous post. It’s dangerous for young men and women to don the uniform and represent their country anywhere abroad. I’ll never forget when, in 1976, CPT Bonifas and Lt. Barrett were killed clearing brush in the JSA along the DMZ in Korea. The North Koreans attacked them with picks and axes. Bonifas and Barrett were not carrying weapons.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

If you compare those badges against the total army enlisted the number drops below 10%.

Warning, the CIB is not awarded to airmen, sailors or Marines.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You, and you alone get to decide what is hazardous duty. By your narrow definition, none of the men serving on any of the following vessels are/were entitled to pay and awards because they were performing their duties in a peacetime setting.

I'm sorry Hank, but truckers die in accidents every day. Construction workers die in falls at job sites. Farmers get caught in equipment. Fishermen get crushed by traps.

Those people perform work in this country that's just as valuable as being in the service and is actually a shit load more dangerous than being a gunner's mate on a Navy cargo ship. Why don't they get to retire in their 40's with a million dollar pension at no cost?

Throw out the Pearl Harbor ships (which were obviously combat related despite your attempt to deceive) and how many men were lost on those ships in peace time? A few hundred? A thousand maybe? And that's in over a century in which tens of millions served in the Navy. Yeah, that's a damn dangerous job. More people die in work-related auto accidents every year. More civilians died in a single day on 9/11. Where's their hazardous duty bonus?

No. I am no longer buying into the mystic properties of the uniform.

Like I said, you actually get put in harms way for the country and I'm ready to hand you everything you need to make your life afterward the envy of Queen Elizabeth. But if you spend your twenty years changing the oil on B-52's at a state-side strategic air base you're not much more in my eyes than the guy who does the same job on 737's over at the local airport. You've got exactly the same job with exactly the same risks and pretty much at exactly the same pay. Your economic worth the country is equivalent. The only difference is that the enlisted airman gets to put his feet up when he turns 42 and the civilian gets to work his ass off for another twenty years and pray that social security and medicare will be enough to get him through.

Like I said, this weepy "but we may get shot at some day" argument is just bullshit. It's why politicians don't want to touch this thing. In the mean time we've run up a $700B deficit in the military retirement trust so that 45 year old office workers can retire and hang around the pool for the rest of their lives. It needs to change and there's REALLY nobody with the guts to do it.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Warning, the CIB is not awarded to airmen, sailors or Marines.

And that's why I only used the figure for the deployed Army in that post.

But since you mention it, the CAB is given to members of other services. However, since the Army doesn't break out the CAB numbers by service I had no choice but to leave lump in the Marines who get it while only dividing by the number of deployed Army.

Thank you for pointing out that the 18% figure is actually higher than the real number. An even lower percentage of military members got shot at in Iraq.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Throw out the Pearl Harbor ships (which were obviously combat related despite your attempt to deceive) and how many men were lost on those ships in peace time?

My attempt to deceive? You are the one who set the preconditions. You said sailors aren’t risking their lives when their vessels happen to sail near a war zone. I simply gave you almost 100 examples where sailors did risk their lives and were killed by hostile fire while they weren’t even in an active war zone—including Pearl Harbor.

Accidents? Only one of the incidents, the Thresher, I listed was a verifiable “accident.” The loss of two others, the Maine and the Scorpion, is still being debated as to cause, but I believe they were accidents. In every other incident, U.S. service personnel died as a result of premeditated, hostile fire. Plus, I neglected to include the U.S.S. Reuben James sunk by a German U-boat on 31 October 1941: six weeks before Hitler declared war on the U.S. Correction: the U.S.S. Pueblo, not Mayaguez, was seized by North Korea in 1968 - my bad.

The only risk these sailors and Marines consciously undertook on the day of their deaths was putting on their uniforms; that simple act made them targets for hostile attack. Maybe, you are more gifted, more prescient than most. Perhaps, on the day of their enlistment, you can discriminate and tell each sailor, soldier, airman and Marine that he or she will be shot at during the course of his or her career, or you can tell them they won’t be shot at. Then you can divide them neatly into two groups: one which will receive benefits, and one that won’t receive benefits. Until you do that, each soldier, sailor, airman and Marine must live each day preparing, enduring the physical and mental stress, as if he or she will see combat. Remember, as long as they serve, their lives are in the hands of others.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

If you compare those badges against the total army enlisted the number drops below 10%.

A couple of other notes regarding the CIB.

Personnel with other than an Infantry or Special Forces MOS are not eligible, regardless of the circumstances.

I know two individuals, one dead and one crippled—because of land mines—and they didn’t receive the CIB: they, like I, did not have the 11 or 18 SSI.

And I was wrong about sailors, airmen and Marines not being able to qualify for the award. Service members from the other U.S. Armed Forces and foreign military (Infantry and Special Forces equivalents) assigned or attached as a member of a U.S. Army Infantry or Special Forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size may be considered for award of the CIB. All basic requirements as listed above must be met.

The CAB was created in 2005. It can be awarded retroactively, but the qualification process is so strenuous that thousands of otherwise qualified individuals have separated from service and/or cannot acquire the necessary documentation to justify the award.

[pjorourke]

It is stupid and irrelevant to argue the relative danger of soldiers or firemen. The point is that there is a "market clearing" price for either form of labor. It would be best if that number was clear and unambiguous like $x per month and we'll stick $y away to take care of you in the future. But whatever the offer, there is a price at which you will get a sufficient number of suitably qualified candidates. I suspect the current number is about right for the military, because they are able to fill their rolls without much excess turned away. I also suspect that for most municipal police and fire jobs, the number is too high, exacerbated because too much of it is in funny money (pensions) that politicians can screw with. An example of the latter: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/n...150g-1.2645292

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

If you join the military and we send you someplace where you actually get shot at then I'm proud to hand you the keys to the kingdom. But if you did nothing but sit on your ass in Virginia Beach and buy toiletries and potatoes for 25 years then screw it. You deserve to pay in and collect social security just like the rest of the pencil pushers in the world. I see nothing special about working a desk job in a uniform versus doing it in a pair of jeans.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Overly simplistic; all tidy and neat. You, and you alone get to decide what is hazardous duty. By your narrow definition, none of the men serving on any of the following vessels are/were entitled to pay and awards because they were performing their duties in a peacetime setting.

Hank, I've got to go with Mazo here...and most consider me a bit to the right of Atilla the Hun.

Sure, you can find exceptions with Mazo's definition...but not really the concept. If the soldier is out there, ducking bullets, then I think most folks say, "He/She has done a hell of a job for their country"...and should be rewarded accordingly. But whether it is 5% or 10% or 20%, it is closer to that end of the spectrum than the other.

If folks are doing, in a non-combat arena, what my purchasing folks are doing for me, that is not quite the same as disarming bombs in Iraq.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

[
BTW “The starting salary for a San Francisco firefighter is now over $70,000, and cops start anywhere between $75,000 and $101,000. In 2007, Mayor Gavin Newsom negotiated a generous union contract with both the Police Officers and the Firefighters Union for his re-election – that gave each group 23% raises over four years.” [June 2009]

.html

On the surface, those numbers seem shocking. A junior civil servant making six figures, particularly for those of us in areas with a more reasonable cost of living, but in the Bay Area these guys aren't living a life of luxury...

Originally Posted by pjorourke

It is stupid and irrelevant to argue the relative danger of soldiers or firemen. The point is that there is a "market clearing" price for either form of labor. It would be best if that number was clear and unambiguous like $x per month and we'll stick $y away to take care of you in the future. But whatever the offer, there is a price at which you will get a sufficient number of suitably qualified candidates. I suspect the current number is about right for the military, because they are able to fill their rolls without much excess turned away. I also suspect that for most municipal police and fire jobs, the number is too high, exacerbated because too much of it is in funny money (pensions) that politicians can screw with.

Exactly, ultimately the market places a value on a job.

The irony is if the military wanted to cut the place to be less generous is with the long term compensation, pension, etc. Most 20 year olds aren't thinking about pensions when enlisiting....they are interested in short term bennies...

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Hank, I've got to go with Mazo here...and most consider me a bit to the right of Atilla the Hun.

Sure, you can find exceptions with Mazo's definition...but not really the concept. If the soldier is out there, ducking bullets, then I think most folks say, "He/She has done a hell of a job for their country"...and should be rewarded accordingly. But whether it is 5% or 10% or 20%, it is closer to that end of the spectrum than the other.

If folks are doing, in a non-combat arena, what my purchasing folks are doing for me, that is not quite the same as disarming bombs in Iraq.

I mostly agree, RK, with the caveat that when GI Joe enlists he isn't sure if he will see combat or serve in the purchasing department. There should be some premium for accepting the uncertainty.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

The irony is if the military wanted to cut the place to be less generous is with the long term compensation, pension, etc. Most 20 year olds aren't thinking about pensions when enlisiting....they are interested in short term bennies...

Exactly. And it also solves the point that Mazo & RK agree on (enough in itself to unsettle the earth from its axis) that we don't need to pay big pensions to pencil pushers. The military and all government employees should get a simple defined contribution benefit like most of us in corporate America. When someone is deployed in a combat situation, make a generous addition to their pension (like 4-5x their regular rate) and provide a survivors benefit -- an annuity paid to their wife or kids.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Exactly. And it also solves the point that Mazo & RK agree on (enough in itself to unsettle the earth from its axis) that we don't need to pay big pensions to pencil pushers.

I agree as well, now the Earth is liable to start spinning out of its solar orbit.

[Texas Contrarian]

I agree too, creating the specter of even more frightening perturbations!

[I B Hankering]

@ RK - I have no more arguments.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

On the surface, those numbers seem shocking. A junior civil servant making six figures, particularly for those of us in areas with a more reasonable cost of living, but in the Bay Area these guys aren't living a life of luxury...

They could choose to live in Grafton, N.D., but then they wouldn’t have the privilege of suffering in exotic San Francisco.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

ultimately the market places a value on a job.

Until 2006 or 2008, military personnel were not paid “market wage.” Traditionally, military personnel were paid somewhere around15% under market value. It was the promised retirement benefits that made staying in financially worth it. Now that pay has caught up, everybody (except those who served) is throwing a fit.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

The irony is if the military wanted to cut [you needed a comma and an article here] place to be less generous is with the long term compensation, pension, etc. Most 20 year olds aren't thinking about pensions when enlisiting....they are interested in short term bennies....

I reread it. Now I understand. I am sure the pension program was put in place to encourage reenlistment and thereby cut the costs associated with high turn over of experienced senior personnel. Institutional knowledge is tremendously important, and training is one of the Army's biggest expensses.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I mostly agree, RK, with the caveat that when GI Joe enlists he isn't sure if he will see combat or serve in the purchasing department. There should be some premium for accepting the uncertainty.

Soldiers with higher aptitudes can normally choose their career path. Career path is really a misnomer. Most young people don't make that decision until after their first six year tour. If they like it, they stay. If they don’t like it, they get out. Very few enlisted men enlist knowing they will stay twenty years. Officers are a different story. If one ends up serving in one of the three combat arms (infantry, artillery and armor) one is more likely to see combat, but it’s still not guaranteed. For instance, there has not been a demand for air defense artillery personnel in Afghanistan, but it was a particularly important skill during both Gulf Wars. Furthermore, if you end up in quartermaster (e.g., PFC Jessica Lynch), that doesn’t mean you won’t be shot at. During the Battle of the Bulge and the opening days of the Korean War, everybody was put on the line. You just don’t know what’s going to happen when you put your signature on the paper. That was the purpose of me listing all of those U.S. ships that were attacked without warning.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

but I don’t understand .

This pretty much summarizes everything you have posted in this thread...

To the extent you served, thank you for your service...that said I think your emotions are keeping you from thinking rationally.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

This pretty much summarizes everything you have posted in this thread...

To the extent you served, thank you for your service...that said I think your emotions are keeping you from thinking rationally.

Cheap shot! Reread my post. I had to struggle with your grammar to understand what you were trying to say. I finally figured it out.