Lieberman and Sinema are great examples of quixotic people who weren't even representing their constituents' wishes. They're legitimate targets of criticism and intra-party competition through being primaried or losing access to fund raising.
Manchin also didn't represent his constituents' wishes, but in the other direction on the political axis. The Democratic caucus won many votes it otherwise would not have, if a Republican was occupying the seat. If the Democratic party is serious about gaining and holding power, it needs to accept that some seats are tenuously held. Legislators in those seats need to be able to break with the party line to satisfy their constituents.
Ironically, Manchin attempted to include permitting reform, which would allow renewables and utility projects the same latitude that oil & gas projects enjoy. However, Democratic party stalwarts blocked the proposal.
For most of history, soldiers were drawn primarily from the farmers (99% of people). They were employed for fixed time periods; if they didn't go to war then they would be subject to corvee and be put to work on national infrastructure. Military service was involuntary, but also closely tied to status. Additionally, enslaving defeated combatants was lucrative for winning armies. Belief in the campaign was rarely an important factor.
Empirically, administrative hurdles are successful at reducing benefits claims rates. Florida found that understaffing their unemployment offices led to steep drops in unemployment benefits claims. The conclusion is only the most desperate people will tenaciously pursue benefits. Most will self-fund.
The merits of such a system do exist. However, the public will withdraw political support for benefits if the number of covered individuals is very low.
> The conclusion is only the most desperate people will tenaciously pursue benefits.
After 30 years in FL working with and around these social systems, what is obvious that this approach locks out those in actual need in favor of those with the abilities to game a heavily one-sided system.
This selective service policy change is unrelated to any prospective or ongoing military operations.
Enlisted personnel typically out-earn civilian counterparts when tax-free allowances are accounted. Officers have accepted comparably low pay for the history of the U.S. armed services. Cited reasons include prestige, networking opportunities, and as a distant third, sense of duty to nation.
> Enlisted personnel typically out-earn civilian counterparts when tax-free allowances are accounted.
Citation heavily needed. When I was a junior non-com, my civilian colleagues made way more than I did, even including the (quite nice) military benefits, even when ignoring the fact that 80 hour workweeks are commonplace on deployment.
Did you calculate pension benefits? That military pension should be worth millions since you can start earning it young in life and it's based on your highest pay during the career.
It ought to be worth millions, given that you work your tail off, for significant less pay, and get that pay instead of the civilian 401(k) you could have.
Let's look at an E-9 Master Chief, the highest enlisted rank. Their basic pay is $9267 a month[0]. If they're in for 30 years, and get the High-36 retirement plan[1], then they get 75% of that — $6950/mo — afterward. That's certainly not chump change.
However, the kind of person with the drive, leadership skills, political savvy, and work ethic to become a Master Chief would rise to least a director or VP, or a senior VP, at a civilian company. So yes, their military retirement's quite good, but at a substantial opportunity cost.
To be super clear, my main argument is that the military should earn more, especially for the sheer amount of work they put in. They earn it.
This is an absurd comparison. You neglect to include BAH or other tax-free allowances; your figure significantly deflates total compensation. Command Sergeants Major comparing themselves to VP of Human Resources is a meme in veteran circles; as in, those who do it fail miserably to get hired when applying to these positions. They are not comparable.
I don't deny that servicemembers earn their pay. There is a premium to accepting the upheaval of a cross-country move every 3 years. But to assert that the average E-9 is equivalent to a director or VP position is incorrect. People of that rank are told in TAP to accept positions of perceived lower authority. Those who are successful in going from E-8 or E-9 to Director or VP roles are extraordinarily rare.
The DoD publishes an annual schedule comparing civilian wages in most MOS's and rates. I couldn't find it within 10 seconds of searching, but I found this old study [1] posted on a mil website, stating that average compensation was significantly higher for enlisted personnel.
For your individual experience, consider the years of experience and education of your contractor / DA civilian counterparts. Furthermore, consider your CZTE and danger pay. It's possible that your individual experience might have you earning less in pro-rated annual income during deployments. Does that also apply when you were in garrison? Did it account for your free occupational training (that you were paid to attend)? Tricare? Tuition assistance?
The fact you're even posting on the orange site to begin with implies you received some expensive training that would ordinarily require a university degree.
> The fact you're even posting on the orange site to begin with implies you received some expensive training that would ordinarily require a university degree.
No, I’m replying to you, and agreeing with you. I’m not posting here because of my l33t OR tech skills, but because of everything that happened after I got out of the Navy.
military pay is inflation adjusted. minimum wage is not.
Private Dumbfuck will get paid more on a per-year basis than the average Walmart worker, esp. when you take in to account medical coverage and training benefits in service and out (e.g. GI Bill)
on a hourly basis... maybe not -- they can work Pvt Df 24/7 an that will water down the per-hour takehome. But said Private will have the pride of wearing a uniform and being able to say they did their service, while no one will flog their experience of being a Wal-Mart drone.
That's not what you say it is. It is an estimate from UNHRC, which has a wide range. The estimate also seems to be for all dead, including counter protesters and government officers. Verification of any kind is in short supply.
It also does nothing to address the Iranian government's claim - strongly supported by US and Israel's public statements(!) that it's a foreign coup attempt rather than peaceful protests.
"Foreign coup attempt" is an extraordinary claim that is not backed by publicly available evidence. Indeed, it's not even backed by the statements by Iranian government officials, who are on record upholding the killings [1]. Furthermore, Iranian Ministry of Health officials have upheld these estimates of the death count. Eyewitness accounts uphold the fact that the Iranian government has perpetrated mass killings of protestors [2].
It is understandable that a person who distrusts the United States government would be led to believe the statements of a government in opposition to it. Indeed, the United States is engaged in an illegal war in which it is the aggressor. However, the statements of the Iranian government attributing protestor deaths to foreign-backed paramilitaries is not backed by any credible set of facts.
> "Foreign coup attempt" is an extraordinary claim that is not backed by publicly available evidence
It is not an extraordinary claim, and it's backed by absurdly strong evidence. As I said, it was pretty ridiculous that Mossad openly said not just that they wanted regime change (as the US also did), but that they were actively assisting in it. And in addition to the thousands of protesters who have been reported dead, hundreds of policemen or revolutionary guards have also been reported dead.
An ordinary, popular protest, even a damn angry one - even one armed with handguns! - does not kill hundreds of policemen. If you think that's possible, you don't understand the power difference between civilians and people with a full time job and training to use violence on civilians. Even if you would ignore the public statements (which I won't let you!) you simply do not succeed at killing so much of the state's violence apparatus without serious material and organizational support.
And anyone who's been following Iran for a while knows that yes, Mossad actually has shockingly many native agents in Iran (e.g. the murder of scientists wouldn't have been possible without it) and in addition there are political cults like MEK, and supporters of the dictator son Pahlavi, who are certainly organized and certainly not pacifist in their fight against the government.
It's your loyal party line messaging which is detached from reality.
(fails to produce any sources for unfounded claims, followed by a lot of rhetoric)
Note the failure to rebut the provided sources in my comment.
I accept that it's unlikely that you'll examine your own priors. My response is for the benefit of people who haven't had the chance to read extensively and travel, who might take your claims at face value.
You're good at trying to seem authoritative with your footnotes and links, but in this age of chatbots it's important to be able to see through that because it's trivial to bluff. Any idiot can be good at it. That's rhetoric. But you'd better get with the times: I think you'll find it's better to write like a regular human these days, rather than like a corporate news anchor or a chatbot, if you want to convince the commoners --- excuse me, I mean the "people who haven't had the chance to read extensively and travel".
The evidence I "provided" was evidence I think you already admitted. You do not deny that the US and Israel openly (and to repeat myself, insanely - it's so bad you'd almost think it was a deliberate attempt to sabotage any legitimacy) took credit for the attempt to replace the government of Iran to an unprecedented degree - why don't you find an example of an attempted revolution where a foreign country claimed to "be with you on the ground"?
I could have linked to the insane tweets with [1] and [2] myself, but why bother. I trust people to find them themselves if they're in doubt.
Never engaging with the credible evidence presented, claiming that heads of state said something they didn't. Other readers can be trusted to see through your lies.
Manchin also didn't represent his constituents' wishes, but in the other direction on the political axis. The Democratic caucus won many votes it otherwise would not have, if a Republican was occupying the seat. If the Democratic party is serious about gaining and holding power, it needs to accept that some seats are tenuously held. Legislators in those seats need to be able to break with the party line to satisfy their constituents.
Ironically, Manchin attempted to include permitting reform, which would allow renewables and utility projects the same latitude that oil & gas projects enjoy. However, Democratic party stalwarts blocked the proposal.
reply