Idiotic if true.
Obama: Soldiers in Afghanistan Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay
Idiotic if true.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67030
is this what the guy was pissed about? A measure forced onto the President by the Conservatives who wanted to cut spending? yeah, very funny!
Thanks for pointing that out. So although Obama apparently signed it without objection, I guess the more pertinent point is, exactly who inserted that provision into the bill? To blindly assume it was 'conservatives' is not valid. Bills such as this are composed by bipartisan committees. It is fair to say that if 'conservatives' object to this provision, they surely screwed up by letting it into the bill without noticing. If they knew about and did not object to this modification of combat pay rules, then they are absolutely culpable.Originally Posted by plato
NO ONE inserted it! There is such NO Provision requiring :"Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay"!
The bill was a Republican bill and went back and forth many times already. If the President didn't sign it, then the troops would go without pay.
From your article link:Got it.Service members now will receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas, Pentagon officials said here today.
---
The act called for DOD to pay service members imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in areas that qualify for the pay. In the past, service members received $225 per month if they spent any time that month in an area where the pay was authorized. “This is a more targeted way of handling that pay,” Kirby said.
Two points here:
one, you don't complain about something that doesn't exist.
two, even if it does exist. The Republicans should bear at least half the blames (minimum). It is their fxxking bill!
A retired 1st Sergeant wrote this? WOW! All he had to do was to contact some of his buddies to confirm!
As I said, we do not know for sure who inserted that provision into the bill. If the Repubs did, they bear the lion's share of the blame. If not, they are to blame for not seeing, objecting to and removing it. Regardless, Obama signed it into law, and he bears the blame for not objecting and demanding a revision, even if he did 'have to' sign it.
You cannot know because there is NO such provision! get it! You don't need to be fired upon to receive combat pay!
Apparently you missed post #6. Take a deep breath, and stop hyperventilating.
Sounds kinda insane that that'll actually happen. Although I can remember being stationed in Sarajevo and seeing resupply flights from germany land and watch 30 odd airforce remfs stepping off for an hour to snag that month of extra pay. Always thought it was funny and they certainly weren't shy about admitting to it. But Im still sort of confused is this destined for policy or is it alot of guy's interpretation?
what did I miss in your post #6? The title of your thread is "Obama: Soldiers in Afghanistan Must Be Fired Upon to Receive Combat Pay". Your post #6 has anything to do with how to qualify for combat pay? I am telling you there is no requirement "to be fired upon to receive combat pay". You just need to be in country.
Wow! I thought I made myself understood in plain English. In post #6 I quoted the article you linked to explaining the real situation, and said "got it", denoting that I understood your correction. What is not clear to you about this? Any further responses on this on my part would be a waste of time if you do not get it by now, so you are on your own going forward. Our conversation is at an end.
What is clear to you might not be clear to me. Your post here caused some confusions:
I thought you were still talking about the provision that doesn't exist
Okay, sorry if I was unclear. I was talking about the modifications to the combat pay rules (the actual ones pointed out in your article), and who was to blame for that. Again, my apologies if my 'plain English' was not so plain as I thought.
Posting Permissions
