Jimbo's Link
Pay raise in 2019 is 2.6%.
Pay raises for the last 11 years were 2.4%, 2.1%, 1.3%, 1.0%, 1.0%, 1.7%, 1.6%, 1.4%, 3.4%, 3.9%, 3.5%.
2010 3.4
2011 1.4
2012 1.6
2013 1.7
2014 1.0
2015 1.0
2016 1.3
2017 2.1
2018 2.4
Who was President then ???
Amoebus's Link
Okay - see link.
Note - elk, we are saying the same thing. My last 11 years started at the latest (2018) and went to oldest (2008).
As I said...look at the Obama Years.
Although, it DOES look much better for Obama if you run the numbers "backward"...well played! ;^)
This year he tells a story about 10 percent and 10 years, first to military wives then goes to Iraq and tells the troops the same story.
Should expect no less from a draft dodger with bone spurs.....
The fact is....
Pay raises come every year and the increase is calculated based on the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index. Been that way for years no matter which party is in power.
But hey it fits the narrative of political b*******. Carry on...
It does make me objective. I also don't suffer from Celebrity Worship Syndrome (CWS) over a second-rate reality star like you guys who tie yourselves in knots defending him...
Read gflights last sentence above - eerily accurate.
He also admits that trump was lying about no raises for 10 years.
Not sure how that author is helping trump.
The one thing he did clarify is:
"which for the first time in a decade, did not tie raises and spending for the military to a “continuing resolution” but rather became a hardened budgetary item."
That’s some serious gymnastics right there.
The fact is he lies with impunity. The fact that most of you attempt to justify it is astounding.
Facts haven't changed. What's changed is our desire to search for them thru the ever-increasing sea of fiction.
Matt
Now retired from the Marine Corps I have been working as a federal employee for just over four years. Every year we have received a pay increase, BUT there was a significant dry spell prior. I think it was close to over 10 years without any pay raises.
Jimbo's Link
Trump actually requested a lower raise (2.1%) for the military last year (2018) than what would automatically take place due to the automatic adjustment triggered by the Employment Cost Index (ECI). Congress overrode him and the military got the 2.4% called for by the ECI. The 2019 increase of 2.6% is identical to what the ECI called for.
This pretty much puts the issue to bed. Trump did, in fact, lie right to the faces of our troops in the Middle East.
JL's Link
"In reality, service members have received pay raises every year for more than three decades. "
Politifact may have failed to read the fine print. I do not believe everyone gets a pay raise when they are "targeted" and in 1985/86 when the pay raise was frozen. The below is the fine print from the attached link. There is alot of great pay raise historical info at the link.
"1986 pay frozen at 1985 levels. The 1986 chart does not display what was paid, but does show the amount per the 3% increase that was passed and would have been paid out if not for being frozen.
Targeted basic pay raises effective July 1, 2000 beyond the approved January 1, 2000 increase of 4.8%. Note ¹ˆ¹: Targeted increases, effective July 1, 2001, the basic pay amounts for enlisted personnel in grades E-5 through E-7. Note ¹ˆ²: Additional targeted increase totaling 4.6% for various pay grades effective April 1, 2007. Added longevity raises at the 30, 34 and 38 year mark for only the most senior enlisted and officer pay grades."
Franzen's Link
I can't think of any other group that is more deserving of a yearly raise than our military men and women. Indeed it is hard to quantify that amount we should be paying them, but I guess we have to.
The other notes are confusing to me - do they mean that everyone gets the CLI and there are groups that can get more?
Or when a tax cut is stated to reduce X amount of money to the government...... to get the effect they want it's nearly always stated as "projected" figure added up over several years. Not a "this year" figure, but "projected".
It's a very common way to state numbers to come out as you want them..... and used by all sides...... everyone..... and not just in government. Sales teams have all day meetings to find the best way to publicize their numbers, or hide them as the case may be.
It seems the Trump defenders are claiming he meant 10% over the next 3-4 years. But, wouldn't they have gotten that anyway under the usual ECI raises? Is it true Congress gave the military MORE than what Trump had proposed in 2018, as politifact claims?
This story is all over the place. What are the facts?
Matt
"So Trump should be saying he got the military less raise than the cost of living that everyone drawing Ponzi/social insurance got...."
SSI etc.. 2.8 Military raise 2.6
Didn't know you wanted to add in bah, meals, and clothing allowance to a pay raise discussion.
BLUF Trump lied....
I am tracking a 2.6 pay raise, 2.55 BAH increase, and BAS not increased in three years.
You're right about Trump being a turd.
"always felt that I was in the military" because he attended a military boarding school and "dealt with those people."
He delt with THOSE people, the draft dodger that has “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military" calls you those people.
This gun grabbing coward is the third term you served under a turd if you want to be truthful....
I'm not in the military and Trump gave me a 10% raise, in Tax cuts. Be nice to have another 10% raise over the next three years.......:D
Keep in mind BAH and BAS are "allowances" and not "pay". For the non-military types....that is Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence. If Prez Trump was combining "allowances" and "pay" to get to 10%....he should have clarified that.
Just to clarify on something mentioned above.....rate and rating are Navy and CG enlisted terms. Your "rate" is AKA your pay grade (E-2, E-5, E-9, etc). "Rating" is your job specialty....Boatswain Mate, Aviation Maintenance Technician, Yeoman, etc. For commissioned officers your pay grade is AKA your "rank".
To bad letting "those people" run their business didn't last long and mad dog had to tell him to kiss his azz...
Democrats are taking over the house and Trump is going to be their boy.
Trump will be going full bore demoncrat before he is done...
See how easy that is when your purpose isn’t to be purposefully antagonistic.
You Trump badgers should be jumping for joy. Instead, you find another reason to be mad. What sorry people most of you prove to be.
Words don't mean anything now, didn't you get the memo?
He could ask the same of you.
And we would like the answer to your last question as well.
Question for you, was third grade the toughest 5 years of your life?
Ryan, only liberal trolls get the Paul treatment on the CF. For conservatives, words and forum rules don't matter;)
Matt
I don't believe we've met. My name is Matt Teter. I'm a retired architect and spec home builder in Colorado. And you are.....?
Matt
Matt
There, I fixed it for you. What a brave warrior you are. LOL.
Matt
I was never a tough guy. But I did have the distinct honor and privilege of hanging around some in my younger years.
One thing I learned about real tough guys, they never had to tell you either directly or imply it. You remind me of a guy I met that lifts weights at the gym, pumps his body all up, applies oil and posts his insecure pictures on FB.
Now, if you did serve, especially in combat, everyone here appreciates it and is indebted to you. A sincere thanks.
Realize, there are a lot of others who have actually done what as of now are just claims by you. We never hear from these folks until someone like Kyle starts a thread thanking them for their sacrifice in Vietnam. Like I said, real tough guys don't need to brag.
And you need to go back to math class, Trump is not responsible for a good portion of the supposed increases you claim. Most just don't want to argue with someone pretending to be an idiot, who obviously isn't.
Blasting anyone who isn’t far right wing like you says more about you than the people you disparage. Isn’t honor was the code of the military? It’s not honorable to shout down or minimalize others.
If you believe what you say, post with a real name and have the courage to stand behind it. Heck, post some hunting pics and put a face to the name. I mean, it's a bow hunting site and all. We should all be PROUD of our hunting accomplishments!
If you believe what you say, post with a real name and have the courage to stand behind it. Heck, post some hunting pics and put a face to the name. I mean, it's a bow hunting site and all. We should all be PROUD of our hunting accomplishments!
Just yankin' yer chain, HH...but if you want "credibility"...you might consider registering as required.
As Bowsniper said, if you want to be taken seriously then you should register.
I’m curious why you come to the CF? Is it to hear other view points or just to tell many of us that we are wrong and to talk down? If it’s to preach then you can save your breath as we have plenty of others filling that roll.
Again, thank you for your service if you did serve as I don’t know because you’re fictitious/anonymous.
You are the one supporting a draft dodging, gun controlling, not listening to and berating your military leaders, big spending liberal.....
Had a reunion 2 years ago but couldn't make it. Was told all our buildings we're gone.
Glad to see you stand up for people who intentionally troll under false pretense but I am not really interested in discovering/researching who someone is. Just like giving Trolls a hard time. The ID thing is the job of our resident stalkers.....
I asked directly for Shawn Magyar to introduce himself, and he declined. That puts him in the same category as Trax and YFP, in my book.
Matt
You explaining why is defending.
As I previously said, I for one welcome HH's opinion here but it doesn't hold any credibility if he continues to generalize and bash everyone who doesn't see things through his narrow perspective. As a Ranger (a huge accomplishment in itself), his unintelligible country boy act is beneath him.
Parse words all you want, Kevin, you said it.
I can't think of any viable reason to participate in a public forum anonymously, especially when the forum rules prohibit it. Accountability and integrity are in short enough supply already. If you don't have the balls to put your name behind your posts, then don't post. Pretty simple.
Matt
Matt knew before yesterday his identity. And if you bothered to use that huuuuge brain, you would see my early post today acknowledged that.
We have a full Bird Ranger in his last year that participates on BS. I wonder if anyone bothered to ask him if he agrees with HH? Great research project for you Kevin.
I responded because it is obvious you always think you are smarter than everyone. You insult people in a coy manner which you think gives you deniability for your brutish behavior.
Case in point, you stated if people were half as sharp....not knowing we were already aware of that knowledge. You are not the only one smart enough to look, Matt just didn't feel the need to toot how smart he was for finding the information like you did. He is secure with himself.
I guess what I learned with your last interaction with Matt is that both words and grammar have no meaning any longer.
"Apparently you're not nearly as intelligent as I thought you were."
There you go with that insufferable ego of yours again. When have I ever cared about how intelligent you think I am? And why should I?
Look, your post implied, once again, that you think you are the smartest guy in the room. And it took a cheap shot at those of us who think anonymous posters are cowards. Furthermore, you claimed to understand why some people may want to be anonymous cowards. Sorry, I don't understand.
It's called cause and effect. Do you think Paul Z. would have been subjected to stalking, if he wouldn't have registered under multiple fake names? Personally I find both practices equally "creepy". Yes, I determined HH's real identity with a simple 30 second search, so I'm guilty of creepy behavior, too. But, I wouldn't have been compelled to do so, if he would have introduced himself when I asked him to.
Matt
GJ was true and never had a problem to that level but the banter and pile ons were rough sometimes. Blue dog same thing. Catfish as well.
Most of us who have a dissenting view have never had a problem other than name calling. Note: If your that thin skinned you shouldn't be posting here in the first place.
Even a Republican troll registered under false pretenses will get a pass and supposed understanding for something he would never be subjected to in the first place as you have shown while mansplainin' for him....80)
In my book a troll is a troll. Whether its sleepy before he was supposedly born again or this new guy. If he wants to recite Army values he should live up to them and have honesty and integrity. If not he should get the same rash of shiz that YFP does....
Try practicing what you preach, Kevin. Where did I defend stalking in anything I wrote? Yes, it is cause and effect. One creepy behavior can cause an equally creepy effect.
"You literally can't make this stuff up."
Actually, you seem quite capable of making this stuff up.
Matt
The only thing that impresses you is the living legend in your own mind. I took it the way Matt did, and so did at least one other who needed you to confirm you meant it a certain way. That ought to tell a brilliant person like yourself something. Just like a whole bunch of people took trump at his words.
You do seem to be making stuff up lately, maybe I just never caught it before.
Matt
.. . ..
.. . . .
I gotta agree with Grey Ghost.
I'm just a man, named Matt Teter, who likes to know the identity of the people I'm communicating with. That's all. I don't take cell phone calls from numbers I don't recognize, either. Do you?
Matt
.. .. .
.. . . . .
"Funny, every Army Ranger I have every known wasn't afraid of sh!t, least of all using his given name. "
Thank you. It was worth repeating, IMO.
Matt
For what it's worth it's entirely possible to have the implied meaning be different from the inferred intent; that's not parsing words it's a simple reality of the language and the ability of an internet forum to obscure context.
I don't think any party is intentionally misrepresenting anything; I see this as a simple misunderstanding that would be over in a few seconds and about as many beers over a campfire.
Just so I'm clear that I'm not casting stones I can certainly infer that Kevin was defending a practice without expending a whole lot of effort. That's my inference however and it's 50/50 on whether I'm right or wrong.
When Rome is burning I don't think it much matters if it's to a fiddle or violin in the end.....
That's an eloquent post, as usual from you.
Here's my whole deal with this conversation. I felt Kevin's "...half as sharp.." comment was a pointless and petty attempt to bolster his own ego by taking an unnecessary cheap shot at a few of us who think a person's real identity is an important ingredient for honest and civil discourse. Otherwise, what was his point?
His rationale for why some people may choose to remain anonymous, based on past nefarious stalking outside the forum, just doesn't compute for me. Stalking is sick behavior, period. The twisted irony is, most stalking is done under the veil of anonymity. I don't think drinking the venom is the cure for this snake bite.
As always, it's a pleasure to see you chime in, brother.
Matt
You brought the publicity on yourself...bud...with your uncivil and semi-illiterate posts, which clearly display you didn't learn much of anything in the military, like honesty, integrity, or the English language.
If you think your personal safety is dependant on your anonymity, then why post here, or on other forum that requires your real name? That's an honest question. I hope you can provide a legible honest answer.
Now, I'll take this opportunity to thank you for your service. 22 years is very admirable, Sir.
Matt
I don't want to ever speak for Kevin or anyone else so I'll use myself as an example of your point; recently I was making a valid point with another poster but instead of being content to merely make the point I felt the need to toss a few jabs at the poster; that was petty and I'm definitely not proud of that. I could hide behind blaming him for what he was posting but that would be horse feathers; I own my conduct, no one else.
Again, I think ultimately it comes down to an internet forum being a poor substitute for personal communication; if we all sat down at a campfire I don't doubt for a second that we'd probably find a lot of common ground and we'd lose some of the "stuff" that gets in the way of honest conversation. I think the incidences of letting our dander get up over misunderstandings or, yes, the occasional need to "one-up" someone (I ascribe this to the man gene kicking in.....) would be dramatically fewer, if any at all.
Bottom line is I think highly of the bulk of the posters here, even those I occasionally disagree with; I'd share a campfire with a host of regulars in a heartbeat and consider myself blessed for the experience.
Finally, to the point of anonymous posters; once upon a time I was probably in the same school of thought as you may be now; I had pretty much a zero tolerance policy towards that. I still think it's best for constructive debate to have each party know who they're dealing with but I can't argue with what I've seen happen here and that's given me more understanding of why some people aren't as willing to be 100% open on their identity.
I wish I had a workable solution; I don't know if there is one but by whichever method we choose to post I don't think anonymity precludes the use of civility, or at least it shouldn't.
It's one thing if the replies are in kind but animus for the sake of animus does no one honor.
As always Matt, Kevin, Frank (I'm starting to feel like the goodnight ending of "The Waltons" here), and all of you other regulars, it's a true pleasure.
The pleasure is ours, sincerely. I am guilty of animus at times, but probably would still be a smart butt around the camp fire, in a fun way. We host some great venison taco/dominoes, booze laced debates with a few friends. Nobody holds back. I drink little, so I win often:)
Only one point of contention with your post...I understand the sentiments of why someone would want to remain anonymous, but agree with Matt that following the rules is about integrity. The only answer IMO is if you are not willing to follow the rules, you don't post.
But, as Matt said, your contributions are always a cut above! Thank you.
I'd argue that allowing select people to post anonymously, in violation of registration rules, only promotes what we've seen happen here. I will agree with Trax, however, that's on Pat, not Trax. It seems Pat has decided his own forum rules don't apply to the CF, anymore. If that's the case, he should say so, IMO, to eliminate the confusion.
All the best, my friend.
Matt
I am trying Mike, but no matter where I sit around the camp fire this still seems like double speak to me.
Actually, it's exactly what you said, when you typed this:
"The gentleman who owns the site makes that call"
The last I checked, Pat still owns this site. So, it's "on Pat" that you are allowed to disregard forum rules. As a user of Pat's site, I try to abide by his rules. I'm curious why you think you shouldn't?
Look, I really don't care who you are. Your posts don't inspire me to care. As a forum user, what I do care about are rules that help maintain a certain decorum here. Obviously, you don't.
Matt
Then you call GG's behavior sleezy for outing people, like you just did with 3 other people. Seriously Kevin, you ought to try following the same guidelines you expect of others.
Yes, based on the evidence in front of me, it is double speak. What is going on with you? Put the keys to the backhoe down for good grief.
Please throw me in the same category with the folks you do not respond to. I deserve it.
I heard Trump lied to the troops about a pay raise. I think they're probably going to find out.....
Gee, here I thought he was just being dishonest. I can be so foolish. You guys who are "half as sharp as you think" are soooooo lucky.
Matt
I agree with GG, it’s his own fault. I mean for Pete’s sake he posted his military ID photo. I’m calling BS on all of it.
For the record, my cell number is (303) 589-0838. If any of you want to converse with me in person, please announce who you are beforehand. I will gladly consider taking the call, or not.
Matt
Kevin, your tactics get old, and always predictable. Please honor my request to ignore me like the others you felt compelled to name. You ought to be embarrassed, but lack the self awareness to be.
Don't bother making another call. Just ask me, here, man to man. I'll answer it. I have nothing to hide about where I was baptized. Do you?
Matt
Identity doesn't guarantee veracity; ultimately it's up to us to digest the information and vet it ourselves; if it's true it's true and the source becomes secondary to the principle fact.
What I won't question is anonymity seems to provide a sense of security at times; it's been said by more than a few here and each time with equal validity; many words are typed here that in all likelihood either wouldn't be spoken at all were the parties across a table (or a campfire) or they'd be at least slightly toned down.
To me this is the crux of the problem with the registration system; it compromises the expression of any strongly held view when a fair question arises as to is it that the belief is that strong or the blanket of anonymity that comforting?
That's a question for someone wiser than I......
And one final thought for the sudden rash of chest thumping; proving one's manhood never hinges on trying to shove it down another man's throat. That is not the action of the strong but the crutch of the weak.
Regarding the chest thumping, on an internet site it might be a legal jeopardy situation. Especially if threats, direct or implied, are involved. Hopefully it ends now.
And you think you're at the top of the list? That's so cute.
Matt