I favor the $250,000 in death benefits for the troops' families, but

[SodoffBush]

I think it's being proposed now in an effort to stop the exodus of military separations. Spouses will probably think twice before pushing their military breadwinner from leaving the army if they know they could get a quarter of a mil. should the spouse die in combat.

[DistantWind88]

1. Quarter of a Million?

Try half a million.

[babylonsister]

3. The figure I heard was 1/4 mil, $250,000. nt

[DistantWind88]

5. That's wrong

The Pentagon has proposed upping the "death benefit" (Currently $16K I think) to 100,000 AND upping the SGLI from $250,000 to $400,000. That is a total of half a mil. BTW, if they are military married to military, that total could go up to $600K.

[Modem Butterfly]

2. I think it's a way to play current vets off old vets

The funding for this new initiative is coming from the VA budget. What a perfect way to divide and conquer. Active duty personnel can purchase a very large amount of life insurance for a very small sum of money, and they are encouraged to do so at every turn (it's a rare soldier who doesn't have insurance).

[realFedUp]

4. Does this have anything to do with insurance companies?

Heard Joe Lieberman shilling for this raise
and wondered what it had to do with insurance
companies (and a lobby he depends on)

[SouthernDem2004]

29. Negative, it is paid by the government.

[DistantWind88]

32. It's actually run by Prudential

Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) is the life insurance currently available to all members of the uniformed services. SGLI is a group life insurance policy purchased by VA from a commercial life insurance company.

[SouthernDem2004]

40. Talking Death Benefit and not the insurance. I have the insurance :)

[DistantWind88]

42. Ah! I was talking insurance

Thanks!

[Stirk]

6. It's obviously an attempt to avoid the Draft.

They're also talking about raising benefits for military personnel. I don't know how successful these measures will be, but it is funny to watch the continued cries of "there won't be a Draft", when the government is making moves like this.

There aren't enough soldiers. Period. This is an attempt to address the problem. If it doesn't work, what then?

[DistantWind88]

7. There aren't enough "soliders"

because there is a current cap on the size of the military.

[Stirk]

8. Uh-huh.

And the stop-loss? Is that just to keep the long lines of anxious enlistees from trampling over one another?

[DistantWind88]

9. You can't replace experience

with raw recruits.

[Stirk]

10. Apparently not.

Not voluntarily, anyway.

[DistantWind88]

11. Takes time

I'm stunned our military has become so small (WRT ground force size)

[Toots]

12. Such a profound statement with absolutely no fact behind it

Many "raw recruits" have way more ability and common sense than some thirty year lifers. There is a right way, a wrong way, and the military way. There were many times I preferred the actions of the guy next to me over the lifer out to make a name for himself.

[DistantWind88]

13. For example

It takes three years to train a military cryptologic linguist (they are being stop-lossed), but you're telling me I can just grab a guy off the streets and he'll be just as good. Let's see, about 15 months to get a combat qualified F-16 pilot (also stop-lossed), but we'll just throw some 22-year old right out of the Academy into an F-16 cockpit and see how he does. Hmmm, Sergeant Smith is a great squad leader; 6 years of experience, 15 months of that in combat zones, but hey, even though Jim over there is fresh off the streets he has a lot of common sense. We'll have him take over the squad from Sgt Smith; that works. Who needs this experience crap?

Thanks for your input.

[SouthernDem2004]

31. He is correct....

It takes to long to train people. NCOs and Officers take even longer..

[lebkuchen]

14. Rummy has always said there were enough troops

as long as you move non-combat MOSs into combat jobs and privatize the non-combat BSB positions. See, more troops, without having to increase actual size. And Halliburton makes out like a bandit.

Slap some kevlar on your basic base typist, throw a machine gun in his/her hands, and you have more troops.

[DistantWind88]

15. As usual, he's wrong

[lebkuchen]

16. Sure he is, but that's how he and Wolfie have lobbied

for Halliburton's interests.

[DistantWind88]

17. Some functions should be privatized

Probably should be a congressionally-led effort though.

[lebkuchen]

19. Not for cost effectiveness/bang for buck/recruitment purposes

Some people join the military because they actually want to learn a skill other than killing people. I know of 20 year olds responsible for keeping F-15s flying. They are getting paid a heck of a lot less than would a private contractor from McDonnell Douglas. Privatization is a complaint I hear a lot about out of Iraq. If equipment goes down, unless somebody from Raetheon is with you when it happens, you're up shit creek because nobody else is trained to fix the problem.

Think of the number of kevlar vests/uparmored humvees a Raetheon salary could buy.

[DistantWind88]

20. Not all things should be privatized,

only some. Like I said, it would require further study, wouldn't it?

[WillowTree]

18. Disgusting!

"Spouses will probably think twice before pushing their military breadwinner from leaving the army if they know they could get a quarter of a mil. should the spouse die in combat."

That's about as crass a comment as I've read anywhere in a long time, regardless of how much the death benefit is or is not raised to. No further comment required. Or merited.

[DistantWind88]

21. Good point Willow

I totally missed that.

[SodoffBush]

22. Personally, I think volunteers should just get room and board

...their families, too, of course. Military service should be based on love of country, not personal profit or a means of personal survival.

[DistantWind88]

25. Good.

Sign up.

[SodoffBush]

27. And that's the point, isn't it?

This ruse won't work any better for staving off the military exodus than the $5,000 reenlistment bonus offered a couple of years ago, which I believe is now up to $15,000. BFD when your chances of
surviving the loss of your legs/combat pay are high.

[DistantWind88]

28. Ruse?

Seems like they are doing the right thing.

Of course a BETTER thing would not to have gone to Iraq at all.

[WillowTree]

30. Exactly!

There has been a lot of well-earned criticism from those of us on the Left that such benefits have been sorely lacking up until now. Personally, I'm glad that they're doing this, no matter what their motivations are. It's the right thing to do. Period.

[SodoffBush]

35. Fine, but there is an underlying motivation,

whether you want to admit it or not. The Bushies didn't triple reenlistment rates in the last two years out of compassion.

Our soldiers are getting their asses kicked, yet the Bushies want to take their freedom-loving ways into other Middle Eastern countries and "democratize" them. It's going to take a lot of soldiers and a hell of a lot of incentive pay.

Either that, or a draft. Incentives are being tried, first. Then comes the draft.

[SodoffBush]

33. Right. This administration is doing it out of the kindness of its heart

brings a tear to my eye

:cry:

The exodus will continue, however, and Bush will have to sweeten the pot even further. At the very least, he should restore combat pay to those who have been left disabled, either in combat or in support of the mission.

He also needs to expand the VA and expedite the application process for service. Concurrent receipt needs to be expanded beyond those with 50% disability. Go to 10%. We've had soldiers return from combat with severe injuries and were given a mere 10% disability. That is BS.

[DistantWind88]

34. Severe injuries and only 10%?

That's just morally wrong if true.

[SodoffBush]

36. I agree

There have been plenty of sad stories posted on this board of soldiers having to protest and resubmit their disability case for reconsideration. Why is our government putting these soldiers, who have already suffered so much, under further stress?

[DistantWind88]

39. I have not seen those

I'm sure they do exist though

[WillowTree]

38. Get your story straight.

You just said that, in your opinion, those who serve in the military ought to be given nothing more that basic room and board for themselves and their families. Now you're beefing because they're not raising the disability benefits as well as the death benefit. Make up your mind.

And, as I said earlier. I couldn't care less what their motivation is for raising the death benefit. Bottom line is that it's the right thing to do for those who give their lives in the service of their Country.

[SodoffBush]

41. Uh, that was said tongue-in-cheek

though, frankly, aside from the $600/mo spending money thrown into the deal, the reality is, military families are pretty much living off room and board already. How is the spouse with kids supposed to survive if the breadwinner dies on the job, a scenario which has never been more likely since Vietnam?

Once the dependent spouse feels secure and assured that the children will be relatively taken care of in the event the bread winner does die, given the large increase in death benefits, use of military hospital, ID card for PX/BX privileges etc, there will be less insistance on the dependent spouse's part that the military spouse give up his/her military career for the uncertainty of the private sector.

That's why we invaded Iraq: to feel more secure. As far as propaganda goes, security is a very important emotion to play upon if you want to manipulate someone.

You don't have to care what the motivation for the death benefit is. I do happen to care. The motivation, aside from maintaining reenlistment quotas, is to flash some big dollar signs before the relatively impoverished overworked military and the patriotic "we support our troops" public that resonate "we at the WH care for our troops, too." Then the WH will use those big death benefit numbers and their highly touted 72% Iraqi voter turn-out (an inaccurate figure, but we'll ignore that for now), and move on to Iran, w/the American public, and the military, high on war again because the father of our country (Bush) cares for us and our freedom and only wants what he feels in his born-again heart to be best for the US and the rest of the world.

It's your basic fascistic political ploy, but I won't hold it against you if you don't care.

[DistantWind88]

43. That's not accurate

depending on rank, and where they live.

[SodoffBush]

44. You'll have to be more specific

I'll look at this later. I have to sign off.

[DistantWind88]

45. I'll explain upon your return

or when I'm here at the same time as you next.

[shadowknows69]

23. are they going to retroactively pay every family that lost someone

in these insane conflcts? Pretty morbid way of increasing recruitment if you ask me. The American dream. If daddy goes off an dies in mr Bush's war we can afford to live for another 10 years.

[SodoffBush]

24. Yes, since the beginning of the Afghanistan war

[shadowknows69]

26. well that's more fairness than I expected of them.

still doesn't change the fact that while the US hires $1000 a day mercenaries to guard Haliburton trucks the only way the enlisted American Mercenary gets paid that well is through next of kin.

[ZootSuitGringo]

37. I agree with paying the extra money.....

but it feels and smell like "hush money" or a bribe.

[Festivito]

46. 'bout time the Bush admin did something FOR the troops.

I guess this new death lottery is probably cheaper than paying for the extra health care or paying for good meals for everyone in battle.