Bush requests a 3.0 percent pay increase for military personnel. House approves 3.5

[wordsmythe]

Bush Administration "strongly opposed" to the extra 0.5 percent because it is "unnecessary."

Why does Bush hate the troops?

(found on FARK)

White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary - Military News, Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

[TexKan]

whoever doesn't want that extra 0.5 can send it to me........

[booger]

Did not read a thing concerning a retired pay increase for us old civil war veterans, who spend more that twenty years for the cause. Has anyone seen any mention of retired pay?

[TexKan]

No.............. you have to continue to live off C rations like I do!! LOL LOL Ya old fart!!

[MissKitty]

Wordy,

What's a FARK??

MissKitty

[TigerEyes]

Fark... only the coolest website ever. Assuming you like bizarre but true news...

http://www.fark.com

[Mike B.]

I'm not sure but I believe the retired military will also see the same increase.

[SGT T.]

I have the only job in the world that allows public debate on how much I get paid. Oh well. I bet if you ask those missing troops they will tell you that 3.5 is fine with them. We don't do this for the money, we just want our families to not live in poverty. There are many who will claim that the benefits are enough to balance the low pay, but they are not the ones with a rifle in their hands being shot at.

[K C Muffin]

T - I didn't ever mean to imply that the retired bennies outweighed being shot at, coming home in a body bag or coming home injured. I just meant to say that it DOES outweigh the low pay experienced by state-side military. No job in the private sector guarantees such rich retirement benefits. Many large employers had them, but have cut them off. I just know that I fully realize the value and I appreciate it. I know you will too with your growing family!

[SGT T.]

KC,
Never meant to imply that you said anything of the sort. I know you know where I am coming from, better than most in fact, and I agree with you. My family should be just about done growing for now though, I mean, 4 kids and a kitten as of tomorrow... I gotta pay off this house before I go getting a bigger one!