100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Obama pulls combat pay for deployed troops | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Barack Obama cut pay for military men and women serving in harm’s way starting this month. The Army Times reported: Starting this month, some troops will begin receiving less Imminent Danger Pay when a new policy takes effect that will prorate the standard $225 monthly IDP stipend. Under the new policy, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in the danger pay location, defense officials said Thursday. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of the month in a danger pay location received danger pay for the entire month. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if a service member spends only 7 days of the month in Afghanistan, he or she will have only $52.50 in Imminent Danger Pay added to their paycheck. Doug Ross reminds us: This follows efforts by the president to make veterans pay for their own health insurance — even those injured in combat — and his calls last month for raises for millions of federal paper-pushers. In other words, the president continues to siphon off more and more money from our defense infrastructure — hitting our warriors first, last and hardest in the process — to fund his green energy scams and public sector union cronies (which, coincidentally, also contribute heavily to his campaign). And yet Obama will be more than happy to use these same soldiers for a photo op. this is someones OPINION of what the policy means the policy, as written, was included in a link above |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama cut pay for military men and women serving in harm’s way starting this month. The Army Times reported: Starting this month, some troops will begin receiving less Imminent Danger Pay when a new policy takes effect that will prorate the standard $225 monthly IDP stipend. Under the new policy, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in the danger pay location, defense officials said Thursday. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of the month in a danger pay location received danger pay for the entire month. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if a service member spends only 7 days of the month in Afghanistan, he or she will have only $52.50 in Imminent Danger Pay added to their paycheck. Doug Ross reminds us: This follows efforts by the president to make veterans pay for their own health insurance — even those injured in combat — and his calls last month for raises for millions of federal paper-pushers. In other words, the president continues to siphon off more and more money from our defense infrastructure — hitting our warriors first, last and hardest in the process — to fund his green energy scams and public sector union cronies (which, coincidentally, also contribute heavily to his campaign). And yet Obama will be more than happy to use these same soldiers for a photo op. this is someones OPINION of what the policy means the policy, as written, was included in a link above No, it is opinion based on facts.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama cut pay for military men and women serving in harm’s way starting this month. The Army Times reported: Starting this month, some troops will begin receiving less Imminent Danger Pay when a new policy takes effect that will prorate the standard $225 monthly IDP stipend. Under the new policy, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in the danger pay location, defense officials said Thursday. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of the month in a danger pay location received danger pay for the entire month. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if a service member spends only 7 days of the month in Afghanistan, he or she will have only $52.50 in Imminent Danger Pay added to their paycheck. Doug Ross reminds us: This follows efforts by the president to make veterans pay for their own health insurance — even those injured in combat — and his calls last month for raises for millions of federal paper-pushers. In other words, the president continues to siphon off more and more money from our defense infrastructure — hitting our warriors first, last and hardest in the process — to fund his green energy scams and public sector union cronies (which, coincidentally, also contribute heavily to his campaign). And yet Obama will be more than happy to use these same soldiers for a photo op. this is someones OPINION of what the policy means the policy, as written, was included in a link above No, it is opinion based on facts.... most opinions are from the ACTUAL ARMED FORCES http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67030 TWO SIGNIFICANT FACTS: 1. The Defense Department defines imminent danger pay areas as places where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions. and 2.Service members who come under fire, regardless of location, will receive the full monthly hostile-fire pay amount of $225. CONCLUSION: Those who are in areas UNDER THREAT of danger will receive the prorated pay for whatever time they are ACTUALLY THERE and THOSE who are in areas where they actually HAVE FACED DANGER will receive the whole months pay,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama cut pay for military men and women serving in harm’s way starting this month. The Army Times reported: Starting this month, some troops will begin receiving less Imminent Danger Pay when a new policy takes effect that will prorate the standard $225 monthly IDP stipend. Under the new policy, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in the danger pay location, defense officials said Thursday. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of the month in a danger pay location received danger pay for the entire month. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if a service member spends only 7 days of the month in Afghanistan, he or she will have only $52.50 in Imminent Danger Pay added to their paycheck. Doug Ross reminds us: This follows efforts by the president to make veterans pay for their own health insurance — even those injured in combat — and his calls last month for raises for millions of federal paper-pushers. In other words, the president continues to siphon off more and more money from our defense infrastructure — hitting our warriors first, last and hardest in the process — to fund his green energy scams and public sector union cronies (which, coincidentally, also contribute heavily to his campaign). And yet Obama will be more than happy to use these same soldiers for a photo op. this is someones OPINION of what the policy means the policy, as written, was included in a link above No, it is opinion based on facts.... most opinions are from the ACTUAL ARMED FORCES http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67030 TWO SIGNIFICANT FACTS: 1. The Defense Department defines imminent danger pay areas as places where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions. and 2.Service members who come under fire, regardless of location, will receive the full monthly hostile-fire pay amount of $225. CONCLUSION: Those who are in areas UNDER THREAT of danger will receive the prorated pay for whatever time they are ACTUALLY THERE and THOSE who are in areas where they actually HAVE FACED DANGER will receive the whole months pay,,,, And that is exactly what I said and it is figured at $7.50 per day making it $52.50 for 7 days of risking your life....fact.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama cut pay for military men and women serving in harm’s way starting this month. The Army Times reported: Starting this month, some troops will begin receiving less Imminent Danger Pay when a new policy takes effect that will prorate the standard $225 monthly IDP stipend. Under the new policy, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in the danger pay location, defense officials said Thursday. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of the month in a danger pay location received danger pay for the entire month. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if a service member spends only 7 days of the month in Afghanistan, he or she will have only $52.50 in Imminent Danger Pay added to their paycheck. Doug Ross reminds us: This follows efforts by the president to make veterans pay for their own health insurance — even those injured in combat — and his calls last month for raises for millions of federal paper-pushers. In other words, the president continues to siphon off more and more money from our defense infrastructure — hitting our warriors first, last and hardest in the process — to fund his green energy scams and public sector union cronies (which, coincidentally, also contribute heavily to his campaign). And yet Obama will be more than happy to use these same soldiers for a photo op. this is someones OPINION of what the policy means the policy, as written, was included in a link above No, it is opinion based on facts.... most opinions are from the ACTUAL ARMED FORCES http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67030 TWO SIGNIFICANT FACTS: 1. The Defense Department defines imminent danger pay areas as places where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions. and 2.Service members who come under fire, regardless of location, will receive the full monthly hostile-fire pay amount of $225. CONCLUSION: Those who are in areas UNDER THREAT of danger will receive the prorated pay for whatever time they are ACTUALLY THERE and THOSE who are in areas where they actually HAVE FACED DANGER will receive the whole months pay,,,, And that is exactly what I said and it is figured at $7.50 per day making it $52.50 for 7 days of risking your life....fact.... yes, as opposed to the 227.50 that will be paid to someone who spent the whole month doing it thats the rate, it wasnt decided under this administration |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama cut pay for military men and women serving in harm’s way starting this month. The Army Times reported: Starting this month, some troops will begin receiving less Imminent Danger Pay when a new policy takes effect that will prorate the standard $225 monthly IDP stipend. Under the new policy, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in the danger pay location, defense officials said Thursday. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of the month in a danger pay location received danger pay for the entire month. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if a service member spends only 7 days of the month in Afghanistan, he or she will have only $52.50 in Imminent Danger Pay added to their paycheck. Doug Ross reminds us: This follows efforts by the president to make veterans pay for their own health insurance — even those injured in combat — and his calls last month for raises for millions of federal paper-pushers. In other words, the president continues to siphon off more and more money from our defense infrastructure — hitting our warriors first, last and hardest in the process — to fund his green energy scams and public sector union cronies (which, coincidentally, also contribute heavily to his campaign). And yet Obama will be more than happy to use these same soldiers for a photo op. this is someones OPINION of what the policy means the policy, as written, was included in a link above No, it is opinion based on facts.... most opinions are from the ACTUAL ARMED FORCES http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67030 TWO SIGNIFICANT FACTS: 1. The Defense Department defines imminent danger pay areas as places where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions. and 2.Service members who come under fire, regardless of location, will receive the full monthly hostile-fire pay amount of $225. CONCLUSION: Those who are in areas UNDER THREAT of danger will receive the prorated pay for whatever time they are ACTUALLY THERE and THOSE who are in areas where they actually HAVE FACED DANGER will receive the whole months pay,,,, And that is exactly what I said and it is figured at $7.50 per day making it $52.50 for 7 days of risking your life....fact.... yes, as opposed to the 227.50 that will be paid to someone who spent the whole month doing it thats the rate, it wasnt decided under this administration No, it was only changed to reduce hazard pay to our military...the CONTEXT was changed by OBAMA..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I can't figure out is why Obama is being blamed for this, when it is the Republican Tea Partiers in the House of Representatives who are screaming for reducing the budget. They were ready to shut down the entire government, finally backed off when they remembered how that went last time, and then a special committee was set up to come to some kind of agreement with the Democrats. This committee, if I remember correctly, was what came up with the defense department budget reductions as a last-straw "punishment" to Congress if it couldn't come to any better agreement.
The president is not able to change anyone's pay, I don't believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I can't figure out is why Obama is being blamed for this, when it is the Republican Tea Partiers in the House of Representatives who are screaming for reducing the budget. They were ready to shut down the entire government, finally backed off when they remembered how that went last time, and then a special committee was set up to come to some kind of agreement with the Democrats. This committee, if I remember correctly, was what came up with the defense department budget reductions as a last-straw "punishment" to Congress if it couldn't come to any better agreement. The president is not able to change anyone's pay, I don't believe. But he signs it.....so yes he can....its either sign it or veto it....so where in there doesn't he have to approve or disapprove? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it odd that the guy in the OP, who is in Florida, is finding out from paypal when he'd be receiving his hazard pay. I'd wager thats a typo. Supposedly the system is called 'mypay', and whoever typed paypal probably meant to type mypay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Wed 02/08/12 01:36 PM
|
|
What I can't figure out is why Obama is being blamed for this, when it is the Republican Tea Partiers in the House of Representatives who are screaming for reducing the budget. They were ready to shut down the entire government, finally backed off when they remembered how that went last time, and then a special committee was set up to come to some kind of agreement with the Democrats. This committee, if I remember correctly, was what came up with the defense department budget reductions as a last-straw "punishment" to Congress if it couldn't come to any better agreement. The president is not able to change anyone's pay, I don't believe. But he signs it.....so yes he can....its either sign it or veto it....so where in there doesn't he have to approve or disapprove? Yes, OBAMA has the bottom line...and what people are upset about is where Obama wants the cuts ...Some are valid, some are not...The ME is a hot spot...hotter then the pits of hell...AND there are other ways to cut military spending without taking it from the very men and woman who do the most to earn it, they risk life and limb, they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country....If US is to be the power card, if other countries want to bash us and criticize us when things don't go they way "they" expect them to go, then US must maintain the position of having the strongest military force in the world...it is common sense that volunteer forces are preferred over conscription .....We need men and women who are dedicated to the job of protecting America, not those forced to do it...Take care of our military personnel and they will take care of us....CUT THE FAT FROM THE TOP....... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually not to be overly technical on the subject but most opinions are not based on facts. The entire subject of critical thinkiing is distinguishing between rhetorical and logical forces. Thinge like loaded questions...a loaded question is something like this
So how many times did you beet your wife today??? is based upon the assumption that you beat your wife at all. You can do this to a lesser degree a persuade peoples opinions in cases such as This is not another one of Leigh's ideas is it?? implying that Leigh always has bad ideas. Most ppl will walk away with a negative opinion of Leigh in this situation without realizing that it was not based upon fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually not to be overly technical on the subject but most opinions are not based on facts. The entire subject of critical thinkiing is distinguishing between rhetorical and logical forces. Thinge like loaded questions...a loaded question is something like this So how many times did you beet your wife today??? is based upon the assumption that you beat your wife at all. You can do this to a lesser degree a persuade peoples opinions in cases such as This is not another one of Leigh's ideas is it?? implying that Leigh always has bad ideas. Most ppl will walk away with a negative opinion of Leigh in this situation without realizing that it was not based upon fact. Hi smarty pants!!  Yeah, loaded questions, straw man, assertion, assumption, cliche thinking, lies...and about a 100 more...seen them all...but when I post, I make sure everything I post can be verified...if peeps want to question, it's fine by me.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually not to be overly technical on the subject but most opinions are not based on facts. The entire subject of critical thinkiing is distinguishing between rhetorical and logical forces. Thinge like loaded questions...a loaded question is something like this So how many times did you beet your wife today??? is based upon the assumption that you beat your wife at all. You can do this to a lesser degree a persuade peoples opinions in cases such as This is not another one of Leigh's ideas is it?? implying that Leigh always has bad ideas. Most ppl will walk away with a negative opinion of Leigh in this situation without realizing that it was not based upon fact. Hi smarty pants!! Yeah, loaded questions, straw man, assertion, assumption, cliche thinking, lies...and about a 100 more...seen them all...but when I post, I make sure everything I post can be verified...if peeps want to question, it's fine by me..... I was not questioning your credability Leigh...Just stating a fact that ppls opions are usually not based upon fact. Commericals promote their products using rhetorical statements to apeal to emotions that offer little facts that actually support the claim. Political discussions are a little better than many and tend to be more factual... Just something I noticed was all....and Leigh I don't want to hear any more of your bright ideas on this...LoL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually not to be overly technical on the subject but most opinions are not based on facts. The entire subject of critical thinkiing is distinguishing between rhetorical and logical forces. Thinge like loaded questions...a loaded question is something like this So how many times did you beet your wife today??? is based upon the assumption that you beat your wife at all. You can do this to a lesser degree a persuade peoples opinions in cases such as This is not another one of Leigh's ideas is it?? implying that Leigh always has bad ideas. Most ppl will walk away with a negative opinion of Leigh in this situation without realizing that it was not based upon fact. Hi smarty pants!! Yeah, loaded questions, straw man, assertion, assumption, cliche thinking, lies...and about a 100 more...seen them all...but when I post, I make sure everything I post can be verified...if peeps want to question, it's fine by me..... I was not questioning your credability Leigh...Just stating a fact that ppls opions are usually not based upon fact. Commericals promote their products using rhetorical statements to apeal to emotions that offer little facts that actually support the claim. Political discussions are a little better than many and tend to be more factual... Just something I noticed was all....and Leigh I don't want to hear any more of your bright ideas on this...LoL K..........................  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm hoping between this little sweetheart and the NDAA Indefinite Detention he forced congress to include is enough to send this fraud packing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm hoping between this little sweetheart and the NDAA Indefinite Detention he forced congress to include is enough to send this fraud packing. How many ways can I say yes!!!!!!....Fired Obama.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
singmesweet
on
Wed 02/08/12 06:43 PM
|
|
I talked to someone tonight that is in the Army about this. He and many other soldiers he works with are ok with these new rules of only getting paid for the days they're in war zones. He said they're ok with it because it will dramatically cut down on in-and-out trips made by staff for two days that got them two months of danger pay, so they understand why the change is being made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a decent article about it as well.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/02/air-force-danger-pay-020712w/ New danger pay rules begin Now it’s for actual days — not parts of months — spent in war zones By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Feb 7, 2012 16:57:45 EST Starting this month, thousands of airmen will suffer a modest pay cut because of a new policy that prorates monthly imminent danger pay, the first major overhaul of any hostile fire pay since World War II. Beginning with Feb. 15 paychecks, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in a qualifying danger pay location, Pentagon officials said. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of a month in a danger pay location received full monthly danger pay of $225. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if an airman spends only 10 days of the month in an eligible area, he will have only $75 in IDP added to his paycheck. DANGER PAY Number of troops receiving hostile fire and imminent danger pay in 2010, the most recent figures available Air Force: 47,207 Army: 187,240 Marine Corps: 29,922 Navy: 35,656 The change would fall mostly on rear-echelon and headquarters staff whose occasional and short visits to a hostile area, such as attending a change-of-command ceremony in Afghanistan, had provided them the same $225 monthly hostile fire pay that went to the front-line airmen or soldiers facing imminent danger every day of the month. Because changes of command often happen on the first day of a month, someone arriving May 31 to attend a June 1 ceremony previously drew $450 — two months of danger pay. Those one- or two-day visitors benefited from what ground combat troops had derisively called “sightseer pay.” More than 50 areas worldwide qualify troops for danger pay. In most locations, it is paid only to ground troops. In some areas, both the land and the airspace qualify. Parts of some oceans and seas also qualify ships’ crews for danger pay. More than 200,000 troops a year could be affected by the pay cut, according to a 2011 report by the Congressional Budget Office. The change was designed mainly to prevent people who briefly visit a combat or danger zone from receiving the same pay as someone assigned to a deployed unit. Under the previous rules, a person could schedule a visit to an eligible area on the last day of one month, depart the next day and collect two full months of danger pay. But even deployed ground combat troops will get less pay unless they happen to arrive on the first day of a month and leave on the last day of another month. Exceptions will be made for troops who are “exposed to a hostile fire incident.” Regardless of location, those troops will receive a monthly payment of $225. The Pentagon asked Congress for authority to make the change in 2009, and Congress granted it in December. Defense officials announced the implementation of the new rules Feb. 2. The move is likely to save the Pentagon more than $200 million over the next five years, the CBO estimates. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/02/air-force-danger-pay-020712w/
New danger pay rules begin Now it’s for actual days — not parts of months — spent in war zones By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Feb 7, 2012 16:57:45 EST Starting this month, thousands of airmen will suffer a modest pay cut because of a new policy that prorates monthly imminent danger pay, the first major overhaul of any hostile fire pay since World War II. Beginning with Feb. 15 paychecks, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in a qualifying danger pay location, Pentagon officials said. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of a month in a danger pay location received full monthly danger pay of $225. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if an airman spends only 10 days of the month in an eligible area, he will have only $75 in IDP added to his paycheck. The change would fall mostly on rear-echelon and headquarters staff whose occasional and short visits to a hostile area, such as attending a change-of-command ceremony in Afghanistan, had provided them the same $225 monthly hostile fire pay that went to the front-line airmen or soldiers facing imminent danger every day of the month. Because changes of command often happen on the first day of a month, someone arriving May 31 to attend a June 1 ceremony previously drew $450 — two months of danger pay. Those one- or two-day visitors benefited from what ground combat troops had derisively called “sightseer pay.” More than 50 areas worldwide qualify troops for danger pay. In most locations, it is paid only to ground troops. In some areas, both the land and the airspace qualify. Parts of some oceans and seas also qualify ships’ crews for danger pay. More than 200,000 troops a year could be affected by the pay cut, according to a 2011 report by the Congressional Budget Office. The change was designed mainly to prevent people who briefly visit a combat or danger zone from receiving the same pay as someone assigned to a deployed unit. Under the previous rules, a person could schedule a visit to an eligible area on the last day of one month, depart the next day and collect two full months of danger pay. But even deployed ground combat troops will get less pay unless they happen to arrive on the first day of a month and leave on the last day of another month. Exceptions will be made for troops who are “exposed to a hostile fire incident.” Regardless of location, those troops will receive a monthly payment of $225. The Pentagon asked Congress for authority to make the change in 2009, and Congress granted it in December. Defense officials announced the implementation of the new rules Feb. 2. The move is likely to save the Pentagon more than $200 million over the next five years, the CBO estimates. HOWEVER, the value of American military personnel did increase in January; a pay raise (1.6%). http://www.military.com/benefits/content/military-pay/charts/2011-military-pay-charts.html The President signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act into law on December 31, 2011. The Defense Act includes an across-the-board 1.6 percent pay increase for 2012. The military pay increase will go into effect on January 1, 2012 and will be reflected by the mid-January paydate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm hoping between this little sweetheart and the NDAA Indefinite Detention he forced congress to include is enough to send this fraud packing. how does the PRESIDENT 'force' congress to include things, and where is the evidence of which parts of this were authored or created by OBAMA a BILL can include many different provisions which are collaberated between the congress and the president, as stated a MILLION TIMES BEFORE,, they bargain with these provisions by giving some to getting some a LIST of those things the administration wasnt 'on board' with and certainly didnt 'force upon congress' can be read about here,,, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf ALSO as stated A MILLION TIMES Before, this bill was a SPENDING BILL for our military that could not afford to be indefinitely postponed until everyone agreed on everything,,, |
|
|
|
|
