Gates wants to cut military pay?

[oyarde]

Looks to me like they do not want pay and benefits to pass a certain percentage .Sort of a typical type of managing tool.

 

[erowe1]

No, it is not right for me to be coerced to pay for foreign adventures to countries that pose no threat to my homeland in any tangible way.

OK. But there are specific costs involved in those foreign adventures, which include compensating the troops who are sent on them. If you agree that it's not right for the government to coerce you to pay for those things, then we're back to my previous questions:
"But what if they don't benefit from it? Should they be coerced to pay for it then? And whose right is it to decide whether or not they benefit?"

The fact that Europe does not have to pay for its own defense is why socialism there has been relatively successful. The Soviet Union certainly could not maintain their socialist state since it lacked a prosperous country to partner with for defense purposes. China has only succeeded in this endeavor because it allows for a decent amount of corporatism combined with raw exploitation of citizens' (or subjects', I should say) labor. Left to stand on their own, the socialist states of the world would collapse eventually.

That may be true. But it doesn't answer the question I asked. Should our government coerce the citizenry of all those countries to pay for the protection they get from our military the same way they coerce Americans to pay for it? The line of reasoning you've been using suggests to me that you think they should.

 

[Travlyr]

And enter the idiots

Troops, police officers, etc are overwhelmingly great people. Are there bad troops of course but its the exception not the rule. Its shit like this that makes me sick and exactly what the previous poster was talking about.

This quote's for you, remaxjon!

The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely.

Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. -- H.L Mencken

 

[nate895]

OK. But there are specific costs involved in those foreign adventures, which include compensating the troops who are sent on them. If you agree that it's not right for the government to coerce you to pay for those things, then we're back to my previous questions:
"But what if they don't benefit from it? Should they be coerced to pay for it then? And whose right is it to decide whether or not they benefit?"

For one, we are talking in two different languages here. I'm trying to deal with the world as it stands, and you are looking at a world that does not exist. Sometimes the only way to make the best of an unethical previous decision that has been made is by doing something that would normally be unethical in order to restore, somewhat at least, the previous state of affairs. For instance, with the Social Security program, eventually there will come a generation (possible our own) that will have to put money into the fund knowing they will receive absolutely nothing in return in order to peacefully correct the problem created by the sins of our ancestors. Yes, sometimes we have to pay for the sins of our ancestors. In the case of our foreign interventionism, previously this country by their duly elected representatives in their form of government, chose to go to war with countries we should not have. We will have to pay for that. That is simply the reality. The individualist point-of-view is simply wrong when it thinks it can separate the individual from the society and says that the individual cannot be forced to deal with the reality that the aggregate of his society has chosen for itself. We live in a society, and if we are going to live in society, we are going to have to admit that the actions of society as a whole affect everyone.

That may be true. But it doesn't answer the question I asked. Should our government coerce the citizenry of all those countries to pay for the protection they get from our military the same way they coerce Americans to pay for it? The line of reasoning you've been using suggests to me that you think they should.

I thought I made this clear: If we are going to be an Empire, we should act like one, and take tribute from our Protectorates. I do not think we should be an Empire, therefore, I would support removing our troops so as not to demand tribute.

 

[erowe1]

For one, we are talking in two different languages here. I'm trying to deal with the world as it stands, and you are looking at a world that does not exist. Sometimes the only way to make the best of an unethical previous decision that has been made is by doing something that would normally be unethical in order to restore, somewhat at least, the previous state of affairs. For instance, with the Social Security program, eventually there will come a generation (possible our own) that will have to put money into the fund knowing they will receive absolutely nothing in return in order to peacefully correct the problem created by the sins of our ancestors. Yes, sometimes we have to pay for the sins of our ancestors. In the case of our foreign interventionism, previously this country by their duly elected representatives in their form of government, chose to go to war with countries we should not have. We will have to pay for that. That is simply the reality. The individualist point-of-view is simply wrong when it thinks it can separate the individual from the society and says that the individual cannot be forced to deal with the reality that the aggregate of his society has chosen for itself. We live in a society, and if we are going to live in society, we are going to have to admit that the actions of society as a whole affect everyone.

I don't accept this line of reasoning. I also want to make ethical decisions for the world as it now exists. But that doesn't mean I can't hold to ideals that don't now exist. Those ideals can still provide direction for the things I support right now, even if I have no hope of ever getting to perfection in this life. If some previous act of tyranny caused or exacerbated some problem, then the solution is to undo that act of tyranny, not to come up with another one that's supposed to balance it out. That kind of state-based solution to a state-based problem will only create new unintended consequences that demand new state-based solutions in a never-ending cycle of growing despotism.

I don't think the difference between us is that one of us wants to deal with the world as it exists and the other wants to deal with one that doesn't exist. I think the difference is that I believe that it is theft if I take money from someone by force and give them something they don't want in exchange for that, and you (according to the line of argument you've been using so far) do not.

I thought I made this clear: If we are going to be an Empire, we should act like one, and take tribute from our Protectorates. I do not think we should be an Empire, therefore, I would support removing our troops so as not to demand tribute.

Sorry, I must have missed that.

So you support the regime in DC removing all of its troops from its empire, so as not to have to take tribute from the people of all those places. Does this apply to people in the United States too? If it doesn't, then how do you determine which people that regime should take tribute from and protect without their consent and which people it shouldn't do that to? And if it does, then aren't we back to saying that they shouldn't coerce anyone anywhere to pay for their military?

 

[AZKing]

It should be a lot more than that. An E-8 with 20 years, should be getting at least ~3000 a month in retirement.

Is that a "deserves" kind of number, or what he should be actually getting? I can guarantee he's getting less than 2000, mind you he's still of working age.