I know today is the Inauguration of President Obama but this isn't about him in particular. It's not about Democrat's or Republicans, it's not party specific, it just so happens to be something that has chafed me since I read it here a few weeks ago.

On another thread a while back, Cat mentioned something about military families getting public assistance with food stamps and so forth.

WTF???


Why oh why oh why are we allowing that to happen?

Why is it that the families of serving soldiers, people who are ready to lay down their lives for OUR freedom aren't earning enough to support their families?

Why is it we aren't hanging our heads and beating down doors to protest at this disgraceful humiliating unspeakable shame?

Today there is going to be a big glitzy party.
I don't want to imagine how much will be spend on booze and food that will be in black bags at the end of the night.
I don't want to know how much "security" is going to cost.
I don't want to know how much peoples dresses were.
I sure as hell don't want to know what sodding "celebrities" were there. (Just why is it we're all so content to pay for actors to wine and dine at the countries expense when we're keeping them in the lap of luxury watching their films already?!)

How many homeless people who could use a good meal will be there?

How many veterans who fought for our free elections will be on that red carpet?


It isn't about who is getting elected 'cos this crap would be going on regardless. Please don't let this degenerate into a party political thread because this isn't. This is about how we are all scrimping and scraping and counting every penny to pay our taxes and feed OUR families, anxious about our jobs, worried about next months bills.. and money is being squandered like this.

I just can't get over the fact of how shamefully we're treating our own, us, Mr and Mrs Stoney Broke - and we're letting it happen and we're sitting here wondering what Mrs Obama's dress will be like?

I'm sorry - I'm venting. I'm just incredibly upset about the fact that soldiers in particular are paid so little for what they endure.

YA !!! what she said >:(

What an ObamaNation! >:( >:(

Sadly Helen, I can give you a list a mile long of our military members who qualify for free and reduced lunches, as well as other benefits such as WIC (women infant and children) for when they are pregnant and the first year of the infants life.  We did - and Clark was an E7 - with 16 years service.

We have fortunately moved beyond those days, but you show me anyone else with 16 years service to a company (never mind one they have signed a check that offers their life and blood in defense of freedom) that would qualify for those programs.

What I would dearly love to do, but of course am unable (I am not allowed to display political discord in that kind of manner) is to march on the inauguration with a sign that says FRAUD WASTE AND ABUSE.

Just my opinion.

I'd bet if they took some serious stats they would find that there is a huge number of homeless who are in fact vets - is that anyway to treat the men and women who have defended this country?

Ok rant over, I don't want this to turn into a hornets nest, and probably should have kept my mouth shut, but I'm not real good in that area :P

Cat

I know people that are going to the inauguration and who have contributed money - for them, it is a significant event.  You may have other events that you want to spend your money on (like transatlantic CH conventions). Who are you to say that their vacation and party is wasteful, while yours was justified? Why didn't you cancel your vacation and send the money over the pond to another nations' soldiers?

And why are people still spending billions of dollars on football and car racing and make-up and booze and cigarettes, while people (including veterans and helpless orphans) go hungry and homeless?  Are you aware of the funding cutbacks for the handicapped in the US?  How do they rate relative to the vets?  Would cancelling the Superbowl help these people in need?  

I think it is called individual freedom - people who have money are entitled to spend it as they wish.  Lots of people decided to take part in this party (which generates jobs, just like football and NASCAR and lipstick sales).  I wouldn't question your personal spending, except that you are stirring the pot and questioning the motives of a select group of others.

While you claimed that you didn't want to turn this into a political thread, the way that you linked unrelated issues guaranteed that it quickly would be, and it was.  

I agree with you that it is shameful that active duty families need to turn to public assistance, but ask yourself why this has happened.  It isn't about today's party (which is a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be spent by the nation on this issue).  There is no link, and any attempt to make a comparison is clumsy at best (and possibly disingenuous).

monty wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 10:33am:

I know people that are going to the inauguration and who have contributed money - for them, it is a significant event.  You may have other events that you want to spend your money on (like transatlantic CH conventions). Who are you to say that their vacation and party is wasteful, while yours was justified? Why didn't you cancel your vacation and send the money over the pond to another nations' soldiers?

Forgive me if I have this wrong Helen but ...

She's not complaining about the private $$$ going into this event.  It's the $170,000,000.00 of public $$$.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

She has a good point.

-Dennis-

The original post made references to the glitzy parties, wasted food, booze, movie stars, expensive dresses ... most of this is not being paid by the government -  its personal spending and private parties that are funded through contributions and ticket sales. Two million people each spending $2000 to travel to DC, get a room, attend a party ... that is over four billion dollars.  

According to the article you linked to, "the federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend.  Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services. "  

How much of that is innevitable?  Should we skimp on security?  Should we assume that no extra traffic control and emt services are needed for what may be the biggest crowd ever at a US Presidential innauguration?  And while we are cutting costs, shouldn't we ask cities to do their part and cancel fireworks for the 4th of July?  

Quakers and Shakers and stingy Scottsmen are free to scoff at the ostentatious merrymaking - personally it is not my style. But the government has to spend a certain amount everytime we innaugurate a new President, and people will spend much more on top of that with their own money.  

Monty,

How about doing it at the White House live on TV?  No crowds, no security, none of it.  Millions of dollars saved to spend on something else.

The big difference between our gathering and this one is that the GOVERNMENT didn't pay for any of our gathering while not paying our troops enough.  

Simply put, it would be nice to start cutting the crap which all our Presidents have spent on stuff like this and start being wiser.  

I am excited for today as it is a day I never thought I would see and I am excited fro that.  I don't blame Obama for doing it the way every other President did it, but I would rather they spent that money on other things.  

Monty as I said - this isn't about WHO is president. I know damn well it wouldn't have been any different if McCain had got in. I'm not slinging mud at any one political party.

I also think it's wrong how many other things are done and it wasn't a slam at the US either. If you knew me, you'd know that.

As for transatlantic conventions or smoking or whatever - well I don't smoke and as for transatlantic conventions.. that comes out of my pocket not any public fund.

I budget for my family. I look after my own.

All I'm saying is governments should do the same. There is legitimate expense. There are charitable donations. There is frivolous waste of money too.

It's not just the inaugaration, you know that. That was just an example for today. What about all the other known wastes of public money?

I know alot of people, here on ch.com as well as non clusterheads who are struggling, in need of help and unable to get any. I know people who can't get medical attention, people who can't afford to eat properly, people in danger of losing their homes. You do too.

I love my country. I love yours too. If you felt anything I said was a slur then I'm sorry and can only assure you it wasn't

Helen

DennisM1045 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 11:02am:

monty wrote on Jan 20th, 2009 at 10:33am: I know people that are going to the inauguration and who have contributed money - for them, it is a significant event.  You may have other events that you want to spend your money on (like transatlantic CH conventions). Who are you to say that their vacation and party is wasteful, while yours was justified? Why didn't you cancel your vacation and send the money over the pond to another nations' soldiers? Forgive me if I have this wrong Helen but ... She's not complaining about the private $$$ going into this event.  It's the $170,000,000.00 of public $$$. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE She has a good point. -Dennis-

I stand corrected ... The Bush 2005 Inauguration cost a total of $157,000,000.00.  

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

It appears that this is the standard cost for a Presidential Inauguration and not some extravagant expenditure owed to the background of this particular man.

-Dennis-

FramCire, sure, it could have been done only TV and I would have been fine with it.  I don't think everyone else would have been, as there are lots of traditionalists, though I am not one.  What about replacing 4th of July fireworks with a TV broadcast of previous fireworks displays?  


Lelimey - you don't have to justify your personal spending, or anyone elses personal spending.  If the money is earned legally and taxes are paid, a person is free to spend what's left as they wish.  The amount that the government is spending is not that large in the scheme of things, and is not related to what veterans or the handicapped or schools get.  Most of the government money is going to police, fire, emt, portapotties, etc, which are normally provided to other events.  

Although I was brusque, I did show restraint. Historically, when we get tired of the Brits telling us how to run things, we start a war. ;)  

12:05  New President!!

wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 8:24am:

........ I'm sorry - I'm venting. I'm just incredibly upset about the fact that soldiers in particular are paid so little for what they endure.

Quote:

Walter Pincus argues that, in addition to being unaccountable, private military contractors are much more expensive than professional soldiers: According to data provided to the House panel, the average per-day pay to personnel Blackwater hired was $600. According to the schedule of rates, supplies and services attached to the contract, Blackwater charged Regency $1,075 a day for senior managers, $945 a day for middle managers and $815 a day for operators. [...] An unmarried sergeant given Iraq pay and relief from U.S. taxes makes about $83 to $85 a day, given time in service. A married sergeant with children makes about double that, $170 a day. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year, or about $493 a day. That comes out to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.

source: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Thought you might find this interesting Helen.

with warm regards,
Tony

Helen......nobody understands why we treat our military families so bady. You'll find that after decades, that is about to change thanks to Obama and his wife. Bush drove General Shinseki out because he didn't like to hear different opinions. However, Obama appointed him to veterans affairs to right this terrible wrong. Shinseki is considered one of the brightest officers we have.

Charlie

Quote:

Helen......nobody understands why we treat our military families so bady. You'll find that after decades, that is about to change thanks to Obama and his wife. Bush drove General Shinseki out because he didn't like to hear different opinions. However, Obama appointed him to veterans affairs to right this terrible wrong. Shinseki is considered one of the brightest officers we have.

That would be a nice change since cutting defense spending is usually high on the liberal agenda.

You seem to be confusing overall defense spending levels with veterans benefits, or assume that putting more into denfense automatically increases programs for people.  Simply not true.


Quote:

For years he (McCain) has opposed legislation that veterans and their advocates deem vital. In doing so, he is simply being true to the contemporary conservative wing of the GOP and its leader, George W. Bush, in opposing social programs and benefits for individuals, even if those individuals happen to be veterans. The only surprise is that anyone finds this surprising. ... From 2004 to 2006, the Disabled Veterans of America gave McCain annual scores ranging from 50% to the most recent 20% when it comes to supporting the group's legislative priorities. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave him a grade of "D" in its most recent analysis of voting records. The American Legion says he is dead wrong on the GI Bill, as does the Veterans of Foreign Wars. When Obama (who has averaged an 86% rating from the Disabled Veterans of America) criticized McCain on the GI Bill, the Arizona senator angrily suggested that Obama's status as a non-veteran rendered his opinions on military matters worthless (an odd stance, as this standard would also discount the opinions of 85% of American men, 98.8% of American women and two-thirds of Congress). Then he invited a look at his own record by asserting, "I take a back seat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans." START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

The lifetime medical costs for vets who served in Iraq have been estimated at over one trillion dollars.  Liberals are not talking about shirking this solemn obliglation.  Many liberals did question the wisdom of entering into the war in the first place, though. It would have saved the nation both blood and treasure.

This may be in good part my fault for bringing up veterans.  Helen's original post, if I'm correct, was geared toward active duty military.  

I've been through both parties at the helm when it comes to the benefits and pay that is given to active duty military.  What is done to the vets is a disgrace no matter how you look at it, that is of course my opinion.  However, explain to me how millions and billions of tax dollars are spent on various programs yet active duty military after 16 years of service can still qualify for free and reduced lunches and other public assistance.

Yes there are always ways that service men and women find to work around the system, i.e. re-enlisting in a tax free zone.  

I do not wish to see this turn into an argument of us versus them when it comes to who is the commander in chief and what party he represents.  What about the men and women who put their lives on the line for your freedom to speak your opinion (and mine) for a wage that until you reach a much higher rank (particularly enlisted) would be considered at or below what is considered the poverty level for this country.

There have been many changes that have improved things for active duty, those changes are MUCH slower in coming for veterans.  Personally, I don't care who is inaugurated, I want to know why the troops are not paid according the risk of life and limb they willingly offer to this nation so that you and I can live the life we enjoy and spend the incredible amounts of money on attending an event such as the inauguration.

I do not see this as a party policy, it's been going on for too many years and too many presidency's for this to be a political party association.  Some are better than others for looking after our troops, but would YOU put your life on the line, in a war zone, under fire, say as an E5 with over 12 years of service for a mere $2828.00 a month before taxes, dental insurance and life insurance? Yes it is required to pay those deductibles.  If you're single that's fine, if you have a family and 3 kids, you are in trouble.  Yes, we get a basic allowance for subsistance, a paltry $268 a month to buy food if you don't qualify for the chow hall.  Can you buy groceries for a family for that amount?  As a side note, that figure is WITH the 3.9% pay increase that was voted into the 2009 defense budget.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

You can check the figures on that site.

This isn't about who is president or what party he represents.  Some take better care of the troops than others, but this about the state of the men and women who defend the rights and freedoms we all enjoy.

Ok, I'm done on the soap box.

Cat

Quote:

However, explain to me how millions and billions of tax dollars are spent on various programs yet active duty military after 16 years of service can still qualify for free and reduced lunches and other public assistance.

Exactly!  And with what looks like the new President's move to more socialistic programs and the money they require, we're not going to see a big increase in military funding or benifits.

monty wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 12:06pm:

Historically, when we get tired of the Brits telling us how to run things, we start a war.

Watching the pomp and circumstance of the big event on CNN made me think that the USA has gone back to the British, royal family (Obamas)and all.

a small swearing in ceremony would be sufficient and money saved go to those in need... absolutely..that would have been a great way to signal real "change"

Bob P wrote on Jan 21^st, 2009 at 11:56am:

Quote: However, explain to me how millions and billions of tax dollars are spent on various programs yet active duty military after 16 years of service can still qualify for free and reduced lunches and other public assistance. Exactly!  And with what looks like the new President's move to more socialistic programs and the money they require, we're not going to see a big increase in military funding or benifits.

Obama has been crystal clear on this... he plans to reduce, not increase, military funding.

Reducing funding is very unlikely. It needs to be better applied. One of those areas is making sure we no longer treat our military families and injured veterans like welfare applicants.

Charlie

wrote on Jan 21^st, 2009 at 4:19pm:

Obama has been crystal clear on this... he plans to reduce, not increase, military funding.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

wrote on Jan 21^st, 2009 at 8:05pm:

wrote on Jan 21st, 2009 at 4:19pm: Obama has been crystal clear on this... he plans to reduce, not increase, military funding. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

No, the obviously distorted hack video only tells part of his position - although he is opposed to militarizing space or building more nukes (we have enough as it is), Obama has said that he would both increase the size of the military (to shorten deployment times and reduce the strain on the military) and increase military pay.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


In 2007, Bush strongly opposed the Democrat's proposed 3.5% raise for active duty, saying that a 3.0% was sufficient.


Quote:

White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary By Rick Maze - Staff writer Posted : Wednesday May 16, 2007 17:34:13 EDT 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. Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.” START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I'm wondering if really helping the troops is important to some of the people here, or if this is another cheap attempt to score political points. Because the actual record of who has been for pay raises and improved veterans care is different from the propaganda that is being spewed. It isn't a purely partisan issue, and where there has been a difference, the Republicans have tended to say that the people in the military already get enough.

Monty, while some of your points are valid points regarding Obama's plan for military spending - he references defense budgets and war budgets, the issue of closing the gap between military pay and equivalent civilian pay for the same years in service has been a contentious issue for many years.

When Bush took over, we saw a HUGE increase in pay rates for enlisted personnel to try to close that gap - Bush signed the law - CONGRESS set the stage.  What people fail to grasp is that the president does not get to say what our pay is, he can voice his opinion, refuse to sign the defense budget (which has been done in the past) but it's congress that will determine what our standard of living will be and how we will compare to the civilian market.

Cat

catlind wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2009 at 5:54pm:

Monty, while some of your points are valid points regarding Obama's plan for military spending - he references defense budgets and war budgets, the issue of closing the gap between military pay and equivalent civilian pay for the same years in service has been a contentious issue for many years. When Bush took over, we saw a HUGE increase in pay rates for enlisted personnel to try to close that gap - Bush signed the law - CONGRESS set the stage.  What people fail to grasp is that the president does not get to say what our pay is, he can voice his opinion, refuse to sign the defense budget (which has been done in the past) but it's congress that will determine what our standard of living will be and how we will compare to the civilian market. Cat

Very true Catlind.  It is congress that controls the purse strings and many in this country do not even realize this.  

-P.

None of this explains why. I never saw Bush....or anybody get serious about it. They can always turn it into a project.........but nope.  WHY? I just don't get it.

Charlie

Why CHarlie?  Because they sit in comfy offices, with expensive clothes and read sitreps and reports and have no idea whatsoever of the true condition the troops face outside the battlefield.  There is no report to congress that says "Hey folks, many of these families need public assistance, can we do something?" there is no report telling of the father who has to take a 2nd job to make ends meet.  There is a report however, if your financial situation gets a blemish on it - you can actually be discharged for that.

Why?  When I find the truth of that answer I'll let you know...somehow I think it will be a long time coming.  Perhaps Obama will recognize some of those issues that have long been ignored and try to get congress to pay attention - hey, anyone can dream.

Cat

eta:  Oh yeah, and you MUST carry a government credit card.  Even if you wouldn't qualify for one on your own, you must have one, and when the bill comes in it's payable in full - even if you haven't received your claim money yet.  THAT fortunately is being changed, and the military is starting to pay the card directly so there is no credit negative on the troops record.

Charlie wrote on Jan 24^th, 2009 at 2:08am:

None of this explains why. I never saw Bush....or anybody get serious about it. They can always turn it into a project.........but nope.  WHY? I just don't get it. Charlie

Charlie, I think it is because the money required doesn’t buy enough votes to justify the spending, for either side of the isle.  Politicians no longer do what's right, they do what gets them money and power.  They have become so detached from mainstream America that they are now the modern day aristocracy.

-P.