AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2012 18:29:00 GMT -5
shark-tank.net/2012/02/04/25210/It is technically not really "combat pay" it is called "hazardous duty" pay and we even got it as submariners. I wonder if that's gone, now too-- seems like it:
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 4, 2012 18:40:46 GMT -5
"http://shark-tank.net/2012/02/04/25210/
It is technically not really "combat pay" it is called "hazardous duty" pay and we even got it as submariners. I wonder if that's gone, now too-- seems like it:"
At least you admit your thread title is misleading.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 4, 2012 18:44:41 GMT -5
On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions. So basically no change for soldiers in Afghanistan. This means the AF guys in Kuwait that are supporting the war on terror, but spend the night in hotels, and going to restaurants/bars, won't get hazardous duty or imminent danger pay anymore. Since they never should have been getting it in the first place I really don't see what the big deal is. Oh, and the Navy guys hanging out in a carrier battle group offshore in no danger won't get extra pay anymore either.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 18:47:45 GMT -5
maybe we should discuss how many $ a month this saves the US government, unless we have decided that doesn't matter anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 8:42:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2012 18:57:59 GMT -5
I'm just wondering if they get back pay if they are shot or killed while not in a "war" zone?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 19:07:28 GMT -5
I'm just wondering if they get back pay if they are shot or killed while not in a "war" zone? LOL!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2012 19:20:15 GMT -5
" shark-tank.net/2012/02/04/25210/It is technically not really "combat pay" it is called "hazardous duty" pay and we even got it as submariners. I wonder if that's gone, now too-- seems like it:" At least you admit your thread title is misleading. Yeah- it's actually much worse than the headline indicates. If it really were "combat pay" you could understand why the President had to make the right call, even it was unpopular.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2012 19:20:54 GMT -5
maybe we should discuss how many $ a month this saves the US government, unless we have decided that doesn't matter anymore. I don't think military pay is breaking the bank.
|
|
|
Post by unrepentant_spendthrift on Feb 4, 2012 20:14:43 GMT -5
I'm actually still in the service, and have done to two tours in Iraq so maybe, just maybe, I might know something about this. Or at least more than "windbag" Paul. There are two kinds of pay in discussion here, Hazardous Duty Pay and Imminent Duty Pay also sometimes called Hostile Fire Pay. The latter is for when you are deployed in designated areas where the Secretary of Defense deems you are in imminent danger. The list is long and includes Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. The amount is $225 per month whether you spend one day or all month in the area. There has been no change to this pay.
The change you refer to is to the Hazardous duty pay. Hazardous duty pay used to be the way rear echelon MFers used to get around the rules while stationed at relatively safer locations like Kuwait and Qatar. Inspite of your OP, it has not been taken away, just prorated to a little over $7 for every ACTUAL day spent in the designated trouble spots. No more getting on a supply chopper from Kuwait once a month just to spend an hour on the other side to game the system and claim the full months pay.
Lastly, the cuts were mandated by Congress and were proposed by military leadership after they were given certain belt tightening goals that have to be met within certain deadlines. I fail to see Obamas hand in this. Wasn't cutting spending large on conservatives' agenda?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 4, 2012 20:21:47 GMT -5
On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions. So basically no change for soldiers in Afghanistan. This means the AF guys in Kuwait that are supporting the war on terror, but spend the night in hotels, and going to restaurants/bars, won't get hazardous duty or imminent danger pay anymore. Since they never should have been getting it in the first place I really don't see what the big deal is. Oh, and the Navy guys hanging out in a carrier battle group offshore in no danger won't get extra pay anymore either. " Navy guys hanging out in a carrier battle group offshore in no danger " Not having been in the Navy but my understanding is that the flight deck of a carrier is considered by those in the know one of if not the most dangerous working environment that one can be in..approaching actual combat conditions if not exceeding it at times..night times deployments of aircraft.. I wonder how that would relate, the new pay requirements , my time in..ok for pay when on search and control missions ..how about when back on base , still open for mortar and such attacks and they were present..paid only if mortared that day or just being there would qualify.. All this because we are 15 or so Trillion in debt possible..Now if they would reduce all political, POTUS too, by say 10/15 % and also cut all their other benefits by about the same , now that would be fine with me..say increase back to what they were when the public approval rate for them was say up to 45 % or so..or some other better # then it is know..a incentive to get their act together..any thoughts there?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 4, 2012 20:25:07 GMT -5
I'm actually still in the service, and have done to two tours in Iraq so maybe, just maybe, I might know something about this. Or at least more than "windbag" Paul. There are two kinds of pay in discussion here, Hazardous Duty Pay and Imminent Duty Pay also sometimes called Hostile Fire Pay. The latter is for when you are deployed in designated areas where the Secretary of Defense deems you are in imminent danger. The list is long and includes Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. The amount is $225 per month whether you spend one day or all month in the area. There has been no change to this pay. The change you refer to is to the Hazardous duty pay. Hazardous duty pay used to be the way rear echelon MFers used to get around the rules while stationed at relatively safer locations like Kuwait and Qatar. Inspite of your OP, it has not been taken away, just prorated to a little over $7 for every ACTUAL day spent in the designated trouble spots. No more getting on a supply chopper from Kuwait once a month just to spend an hour on the other side to game the system and claim the full months pay. Lastly, the cuts were mandated by Congress and were proposed by military leadership after they were given certain belt tightening goals that have to be met within certain deadlines. I fail to see Obamas hand in this. Wasn't cutting spending large on conservatives' agenda? Thanks for the real scoop here unrepent..appreciate it..and needless to say..thank you for your service and you be safe now if still in..appreciate the sacrifice ..you and yours.
|
|
|
Post by naggie1972 on Feb 4, 2012 20:25:28 GMT -5
I don't know if that is true because H only got that for about two months of his sixer because of where they were at the time (Gulf). So this doesn't sound correct, H didn't get hazardous duty pay the whole sixer.
|
|
|
Post by naggie1972 on Feb 4, 2012 20:27:21 GMT -5
Oh, and the Navy guys hanging out in a carrier battle group offshore in no danger won't get extra pay anymore either.
Don't know when you were in but in the 90's hanging out in a carrier battle group offshore they certainly were in danger. Mostly from themselves....but you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by unrepentant_spendthrift on Feb 4, 2012 20:33:56 GMT -5
Thanks for the real scoop here unrepent..appreciate it..and needless to say..thank you for your service and you be safe now if still in..appreciate the sacrifice ..you and yours. Thank you. I'm still in but now safely esconced in a "cushy" location stateside. I lurk and rarely post but such blatant distortions piss me off. Takes away from the quality of discussion, IMHO
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 4, 2012 20:42:10 GMT -5
Thanks for the real scoop here unrepent..appreciate it..and needless to say..thank you for your service and you be safe now if still in..appreciate the sacrifice ..you and yours. Thank you. I'm still in but now safely esconced in a "cushy" location stateside. I lurk and rarely post but such blatant distortions piss me off. Takes away from the quality of discussion, IMHO Couldn't agree more..and enjoy the cushy deployment... your entitled.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 4, 2012 20:47:08 GMT -5
I'm actually still in the service, and have done to two tours in Iraq so maybe, just maybe, I might know something about this. Or at least more than "windbag" Paul. There are two kinds of pay in discussion here, Hazardous Duty Pay and Imminent Duty Pay also sometimes called Hostile Fire Pay. The latter is for when you are deployed in designated areas where the Secretary of Defense deems you are in imminent danger. The list is long and includes Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. The amount is $225 per month whether you spend one day or all month in the area. There has been no change to this pay. The change you refer to is to the Hazardous duty pay. Hazardous duty pay used to be the way rear echelon MFers used to get around the rules while stationed at relatively safer locations like Kuwait and Qatar. Inspite of your OP, it has not been taken away, just prorated to a little over $7 for every ACTUAL day spent in the designated trouble spots. No more getting on a supply chopper from Kuwait once a month just to spend an hour on the other side to game the system and claim the full months pay. Lastly, the cuts were mandated by Congress and were proposed by military leadership after they were given certain belt tightening goals that have to be met within certain deadlines. I fail to see Obamas hand in this. Wasn't cutting spending large on conservatives' agenda? Thanks for the information, spendthrift. It's always good to hear from someone who actually knows about these matters through current experience. With all the absolute garbage that's circulated through email and internet blogs, it's important that those who really know what's going on speak up! I'm so glad you did. Thanks for your service to our country (cushy stateside assignment notwithstanding), and stay safe!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2012 21:24:36 GMT -5
I'm actually still in the service, and have done to two tours in Iraq so maybe, just maybe, I might know something about this. Or at least more than "windbag" Paul. There are two kinds of pay in discussion here, Hazardous Duty Pay and Imminent Duty Pay also sometimes called Hostile Fire Pay. The latter is for when you are deployed in designated areas where the Secretary of Defense deems you are in imminent danger. The list is long and includes Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. The amount is $225 per month whether you spend one day or all month in the area. There has been no change to this pay. The change you refer to is to the Hazardous duty pay. Hazardous duty pay used to be the way rear echelon MFers used to get around the rules while stationed at relatively safer locations like Kuwait and Qatar. Inspite of your OP, it has not been taken away, just prorated to a little over $7 for every ACTUAL day spent in the designated trouble spots. No more getting on a supply chopper from Kuwait once a month just to spend an hour on the other side to game the system and claim the full months pay. Lastly, the cuts were mandated by Congress and were proposed by military leadership after they were given certain belt tightening goals that have to be met within certain deadlines. I fail to see Obamas hand in this. Wasn't cutting spending large on conservatives' agenda? Thanks for your service- and thanks for the info. Like you, I only have the information I have access to. I think we need to up the pay for all our armed forces, and I think anyone stationed in that region is under constant threat.
|
|
|
Post by unrepentant_spendthrift on Feb 4, 2012 21:30:58 GMT -5
Thanks for your service- and thanks for the info. Like you, I only have the information I have access to. I think we need to up the pay for all our armed forces, and I think anyone stationed in that region is under constant threat. I'm with you there, Paul...and they deserve more than a measly $225 but its an all volunteer force. We all knew what we signed up for.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 21:59:54 GMT -5
maybe we should discuss how many $ a month this saves the US government, unless we have decided that doesn't matter anymore. I don't think military pay is breaking the bank. neither is congressional pay, but i don't think a week goes by where it is not mentioned.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 4, 2012 22:18:29 GMT -5
Congressional pay breaking the bank, solving the problems we face? Of course not but the idea of, the message of , not happy with how those in office are doing by the great majority of the people, and as many of us, I don't think all are dishonest and not doing their job.. but it's gotten to the point to think that they are doing their jobs to the best of their ability..that is a long shot, so to cut them back as a message of dissatisfaction, why not.
Grant you the $225 isn't what it's worth but then again when I served , starting pay was about a $100 per , think less actually, long time ago, and combat pay not what it is today and the incoming was just as bad..different times, different strokes and my pop in WW2 was even less ..
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2012 22:45:03 GMT -5
Thanks for your service- and thanks for the info. Like you, I only have the information I have access to. I think we need to up the pay for all our armed forces, and I think anyone stationed in that region is under constant threat. I'm with you there, Paul...and they deserve more than a measly $225 but its an all volunteer force. We all knew what we signed up for. The college money? But seriously- I didn't mind the GI Bill, nor did I mind the resume enhancement of United States Navy Submarine Service-- my first two employers didn't even read past Navy before hiring me. So, it can have perks- if you get outta there in one piece. Thanks for your service!
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 4, 2012 23:54:13 GMT -5
" shark-tank.net/2012/02/04/25210/It is technically not really "combat pay" it is called "hazardous duty" pay and we even got it as submariners. I wonder if that's gone, now too-- seems like it:" At least you admit your thread title is misleading. Yeah- it's actually much worse than the headline indicates. If it really were "combat pay" you could understand why the President had to make the right call, even it was unpopular. With clarification it wasn't worse than your headline indicates.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 5, 2012 0:09:16 GMT -5
Don't know when you were in but in the 90's hanging out in a carrier battle group offshore they certainly were in danger. Mostly from themselves....but you know what I mean. Certain jobs are dangerous all the time, like working the deck of an aircraft carrier, or doing explosive ordinance disposal. That doesn't mean they should get "combat pay" all the time. The vast majority of Navy personnel in a carrier battle group don't even work the carrier deck anyway. Some of them are radio men or sonar operators on support ships. Not exactly a wickedly dangerous job. Even on the carrier itself you have cooks, electronics operators, maintenance guys, etc. While they all deserve, and get, separation pay for being deployed away from their families, they aren't in imminent danger of being attacked by our adversaries and shouldn't get that pay.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 5, 2012 1:02:52 GMT -5
One could look at it as hardship pay..it is a hardship even if the food is a ok and they get " to see the world " on liberty...[ Methink that there is less sight seeing then ...sailors being sailors..]
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 5, 2012 5:10:29 GMT -5
"I don't think military pay is breaking the bank."
*shrugs* neither are civilian government workers, but everyone likes to trash them.
From what I've seen, doesn't seem to unreasonable. As Dark said, just because you support the war doesn't mean you're in imminant danger.
And I thought the government saving money was a good thing? But just like when they don't mail out SS statements anymore, we bitch when they spend too much and bitch when they save money.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Feb 5, 2012 8:39:51 GMT -5
I love how Congress is looking for ways to cut spending by the government, but they never cut their own pay and their own perks..... is there something wrong with that, I say yes.....
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 5, 2012 9:09:55 GMT -5
I love how Congress is looking for ways to cut spending by the government, but they never cut their own pay and their own perks..... is there something wrong with that, I say yes..... I think a lot of people would agree with you, mwcpa.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Feb 5, 2012 10:34:04 GMT -5
I love how Congress is looking for ways to cut spending by the government, but they never cut their own pay and their own perks..... is there something wrong with that, I say yes..... I think a lot of people would agree with you, mwcpa. maybe it's time "we" vote for Congress's pay, the same way Congress votes for military pay, Grandma's social security, etc.....Congress has a better pay package than CEOs who fail.... because we keep electing these morons over and over again.....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 8:42:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 10:45:12 GMT -5
I don't take issue with the amount of Congressional pay - just the amount of work we get out of them. I'd love for it to be a pay for performance system, but unfortunately it would be hard to define performance (since sometimes the right course of action is to not pass a law, the number of laws passed wouldn't work) and $200k isn't the kind of money that motivates most of the Congress anyway. My Congressman is affluent enough that he can donate his entire salary to charity every year.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 5, 2012 12:05:02 GMT -5
"maybe it's time "we" vote for Congress's pay, the same way Congress votes for military pay, Grandma's social security, etc.....Congress has a better pay package than CEOs who fail.... because we keep electing these morons over and over again....." I'm usually not one to defend congress, so let me zip into my flameproof suit.... The salary for a rank and file member of the house and senate is $174,000. A respectable salary for most parts of the country, but hardly anywhere close to the millions upon millions a CEO gets. Another common myth is that congress (and other federal employees) is that they don't pay into SS, which is false. My issue with them isn't their pay. I actually hope they get a reasonable salary because I don't want congress full of people who are indepedently wealthy. Some of the founding fathers proposed that congress should not be paid, but other founding fathers felt that only the wealthy could be in office. As Crafty put it, my issue with congress isn't their pay, but that we don't get more out of them, or hold them to a higher standard. Not passing a budget is just disgraceful. If you want to learn more about congressional pay and benefits, instead of spouting lies and half truths, check this out. usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
|
|