View Full Version : Injured? Crippled? Then Give Uncle Sam His Money Back!
I've seen a couple of news stories about this. People get signing bonuses when they join the military. Sometimes they get, you know, hurt before they can finish out their term of service. So what does our loving government do? Dun them for a prorated sum. Disgusting, no? Full article below the spoil. I dare anyone to defend this practice.
Wounded Soldier: Military Wants Part Of Bonus Back
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ― The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.
To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.
Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.
One of them is Jordan Fox, a young soldier from the South Hills.
He finds solace in the hundreds of boxes he loads onto a truck in Carnegie. In each box is a care package that will be sent to a man or woman serving in Iraq. It was in his name Operation Pittsburgh Pride was started.
Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and lost all vision in his right eye.
A few months later Fox was sent home. His injuries prohibited him from fulfilling three months of his commitment. A few days ago, he received a letter from the military demanding nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus back.
"I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they're telling me they want their money back," he explained.
It's a slap for Fox's mother, Susan Wardezak, who met with President Bush in Pittsburgh last May. He thanked her for starting Operation Pittsburgh Pride which has sent approximately 4,000 care packages.
He then sent her a letter expressing his concern over her son's injuries, so she cannot understand the U.S. Government's apparent lack of concern over injuries to countless U.S. Soldiers and demands that they return their bonuses.
While he's unsure of his future, Fox says he's unwavering in his commitment to his country.
"I'd do it all over again... because I'm proud of the discipline that I learned. I'm proud to have done something for my country," he said.
But Fox feels like he's already given enough. He'll never be able to pursue his dream of being a police officer because of his wounds and he can't believe he's being asked to return part of his $10,000 signing bonus.
KDKA contacted Congressman Jason Altmire on his behalf. He says he has proposed a bill that would guarantee soldiers receive full benefit of bonuses.
I've seen a couple of news stories about this. People get signing bonuses when they join the military. Sometimes they get, you know, hurt before they can finish out their term of service. So what does our loving government do? Dun them for a prorated sum. Disgusting, no? Full article below the spoil. I dare anyone to defend this practice.
Wounded Soldier: Military Wants Part Of Bonus Back
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ― The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.
To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.
Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.
One of them is Jordan Fox, a young soldier from the South Hills.
He finds solace in the hundreds of boxes he loads onto a truck in Carnegie. In each box is a care package that will be sent to a man or woman serving in Iraq. It was in his name Operation Pittsburgh Pride was started.
Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and lost all vision in his right eye.
A few months later Fox was sent home. His injuries prohibited him from fulfilling three months of his commitment. A few days ago, he received a letter from the military demanding nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus back.
"I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they're telling me they want their money back," he explained.
It's a slap for Fox's mother, Susan Wardezak, who met with President Bush in Pittsburgh last May. He thanked her for starting Operation Pittsburgh Pride which has sent approximately 4,000 care packages.
He then sent her a letter expressing his concern over her son's injuries, so she cannot understand the U.S. Government's apparent lack of concern over injuries to countless U.S. Soldiers and demands that they return their bonuses.
While he's unsure of his future, Fox says he's unwavering in his commitment to his country.
"I'd do it all over again... because I'm proud of the discipline that I learned. I'm proud to have done something for my country," he said.
But Fox feels like he's already given enough. He'll never be able to pursue his dream of being a police officer because of his wounds and he can't believe he's being asked to return part of his $10,000 signing bonus.
KDKA contacted Congressman Jason Altmire on his behalf. He says he has proposed a bill that would guarantee soldiers receive full benefit of bonuses.
Whats particularly bothersome is the notion that a lost arm or leg somehow negates the ability to serve. If and when the soldier is able to get on with life after recovery the military should attempt to accomedate thier new circumstance through the remainder of thier service contract. Even if they cant the signing bonus money should never be in question.
Trying to do a war on the cheap is so rumsfeld :thumbsdown:
Gregoshi
11-22-2007, 03:46
The appropriate term for this practice is "lame".
It is a complete disgrace that a wounded soldier becomes worthless in the eyes of the government the moment they are saved from death.
KukriKhan
11-22-2007, 04:08
Link please?
The military offers several bonuses of various types, not all of which are refundable - but those 'signing' bonuses are.
Sadly, I expect to see more stories like this (mistreatment of soldiers/vets) in the coming 3-4 years, as Iraq winds down and today's active duty survivors become tomorrow's veterans.
Vladimir
11-22-2007, 04:45
I expect this to last about five minutes and suspect bureaucracy is part or all of the problem. Look at all the fallout from mold and cockroaches at Walter Reed. Put your knee back in its socket and provide a source please.
Papewaio
11-22-2007, 04:53
If you are hurt sky-larking off duty then fair enough or I suppose if you sprain you hand while typing in the office on duty.
But a frontline wounding (I presume he got a purple heart for that) or indeed a shelling of an office pool... should be exempt from the 'pay us back' policy.
Surely they don't ask the widow of the dead to pay back any signing bonus for those who die in the line of duty?
What should happen is that they get disability plus an extra signing bonus as compensation for no longer being able to sign up.
If they are going to play this bureaucratic game that is usually used on those in the luxury of safe civy jobs surely the soliders can counter with a claim of not providing a safe working environment just like civilians can... loss of future earning potential, physical anguish, mental anguish... it can't be just a one way street... want to test them like employees in a civilian job, then let the 'employees' counter claim like civilians.
Oops, sorry, I'm normally quite careful to provide a link. My bad. (http://kdka.com/local/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html)
Tribesman
11-22-2007, 08:37
I dare anyone to defend this practice.
Too right , if the bonus is for fulfilling a term of service then failure to fulfill that term negates your right to the bonus .
It is a job , getting blown up may be part of the job , if you are not happy with those job conditions then don't accept the contract .
Screw them , the job also has payments that covers injuries for getting blown up , take that and don't moan that the term bonus is lost .
Pharnakes
11-22-2007, 13:23
I dare anyone to defend this practice.
Ouch, my first post in the backroom is directly against a moderator...
Anyway, surely it boils down to this: They are soldiers => they get paid to fight => why should they get paid if they can't fight?
If it was somehow the military's fault that they got injured, (eg friendly fire), then maybe it would be different. But just being rendered unfit for service in your line of duty, damit, you're a soldier you either kill or be killed, thats is your job. If you don't like it, don't join the army.
Gods, things like his anoy me so much. They spout some meaningles patriotic drivel and join the army on a wave of "anti-terorist" patriotism, going out to "free the world form terror", and then guess what?! It turns out that someone is quite happy with his own ideas of "freedom" and would rather you didn't stick your oversized, gung-ho, american nose in his (mostly inocent) bussiness. So he shoots you. Big deal moron, what did you think he was going to do? Surrender to someone who has destroyed his country and enslaved thousands in the name of a "freedom" that the populace didn't even ask for?
Just be thankful you are still alive, and atleast try to use your experinces to relalise what the Bush administration is really like.:wall:
Geoffrey S
11-22-2007, 13:26
Ouch, my first post in the backroom...
...and it shows... might want to wait until you grow up for the next one.
Pharnakes
11-22-2007, 13:44
I am not trying to offend anyone here, but the point is this: Why do people go to war in the first place? There is no good reason to go to war. It is completly evil. In the words of someone or other, "war has no winners only a losser." Therefore, what can you expect from war, except pain, misery and death? To do so is foolish in the extreme, and will only result in your being disapointed, as in this case.
Anyway, before this degenerates into a discusion on the ethics of war, I still don't see why someone should object to returning money that he was payed in exchange for fufilling a task that he can no longer complete. Maybe he should get some compensation money, indeed, I think he should, but that is sepperate from the issue in hand. If you can't do your job, what right do you have to be payed for it?
The word "recruitment bonus" sounds like you get it just for signing up, that means writing your name in the right place. If he got monthly pay as a normal soldier, he wouldn't get that anymore, makes sense.
But recruitment bonus sounds intentionally misleading if it means something like service-time bonus, why would you get a recruitment bonus for the last three months? Your recruitment was several months ago. :dizzy2:
Not that it surprises me after what I heard about army recruitment but if he somehow signed a paper stating that he is only eligible for the full recruitment bonus if he serves the full time, then he should of course pay it back.
If they just gave it to him saying nothing more than "Hey, welcome to the army, here's your recruitment bonus!", then they should bugger off.
Pharnakes
11-22-2007, 16:40
This is true, I hadn't thought of it from this angle. :bow:
Devastatin Dave
11-22-2007, 17:42
Wow, talk about a biased report. Anyway, AS someone who has recieved bonuses in the military, once for enlisting and once for reenlisting, bonuses are bonuses for what you provide. If you cannot uphold your commitment stipulated in the bonus contract (which is read before signing and explained to you as well by MEPS and the MPF), then guess what, you don't get your bonus and you have to pay back what you've already recieved because you did not fullfill your agreement. Nice try Lemur, been drinking the bong water again?:yes:
Maybe I can explain it where you can understand it Lemus, say your hanging out with the Code Pink Gals and one of them says that they'll give you a Clinton if you run up to Dick Cheney, call him a warmonger and throw a half burnt American flag that is spread with vegan feces all over it. Well you get up to Cheney, call him a warmonger, but then a secret service guys tazes your ass just before you fling the half burnt flag with hippy poop on it. You go back to the Code Pink gal to get your Slick Willie and she refuses. Well guess what, you didn't complete what was needed for your BONUS. There, do you understand now? :yes:
Mongoose
11-22-2007, 18:30
"War is hell, so let's treat our wounded veterans like crap! Serves them right for doing something so evil."
:inquisitive:
Wow, talk about a biased report.
Oh no you don't. I only get a nickel when Xiahou uses the word "bias."
Anyway, AS someone who has recieved bonuses in the military, once for enlisting and once for reenlisting, bonuses are bonuses for what you provide. If you cannot uphold your commitment stipulated in the bonus contract (which is read before signing and explained to you as well by MEPS and the MPF), then guess what, you don't get your bonus and you have to pay back what you've already recieved because you did not fullfill your agreement.
Speaking as someone who has received performance bonuses, signing bonuses, and all sorts of funny money, I have to say this is unusual. A bonus, in the real world, is a bonus, not substitute pay prorated over a term of service. I guess it's handled differently when feeding from the governmental teat.
A soldier who has been wounded in the service of our country should keep his or her signing bonus, at the very least. Saying this clearly makes me a pinko anti-American in your eyes, o shrill one.
Tribesman
11-22-2007, 19:33
A soldier who has been wounded in the service of our country should keep his or her signing bonus, at the very least.
Why should they ?
KukriKhan
11-22-2007, 19:43
Why should they ?
Because HE is not saying he's unfit to fulfill the bonus conditions, Army Management is; therefore THEY are breaking the contract, not the GI.
HoreTore
11-22-2007, 20:04
Why should they ?
Because it would be morally right and fair. This isn't about law and what can be done legally. This is about morals and politics.
Goofball
11-22-2007, 20:06
I'm tickled pink at this thread, simply because Dave and Tribesy are on the same side.
And now, I will ask both of you to give your heads a good, hard, shake.
The military is offering signing bonuses in part because the Iraq war is fairly unpopular, and known to be very dangerous, which makes recruiting for same a more difficult proposition. So, they offer people $$ to sign up. Fair enough.
So now, let's leave the obvious (at least to anybody with a moral compass that hasn't lost its magnetism) answer (that it is nothing but dirty trickery to take money back from a soldier because he has gone over and been wounded performing his duty) out of this for a second.
How about this: the military gives bonuses to boost recruiting in difficult times, so how much more difficult (and more expensive) will it now be for recruiters to make their quotas when word gets out that soldiers are getting screwed out of that money at a time in their life when they need it most?
This is a simple case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Tribesman
11-22-2007, 20:32
Because HE is not saying he's unfit to fulfill the bonus conditions, Army Management is; therefore THEY are breaking the contract, not the GI.
He says he is unfit to join the policeforce , which has stricter medical / fitness requirements , the military or the police ?
Next time you see a batch of soldiers marines or sailors on their way to Iraq look how many of them are gimped , they have all been passed fit for service havn't they , the military will not ditch you just because you are wounded , they will ditch you when your wounds are determined to exclude you from service .
How about this: the military gives bonuses to boost recruiting in difficult times, so how much more difficult (and more expensive) will it now be for recruiters to make their quotas when word gets out that soldiers are getting screwed out of that money at a time in their life when they need it most?
This is a simple case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
How much easier and cheaper would it be to recruit and fill the quotas if there wasn't some nonsensical war/policy in Iraq ?
A simple case of penny foolish and billions of dollars stupid .
Because it would be morally right and fair.
No it wouldn't , the morally right and fair part would be decent incapacitated veterans services and benefits , not bonus payments for a non-fulfilled contract .
They're not getting screwed out of anything if they signed a contract in which it was stated that they have to pay a certain amount back should they get wounded or leave the military otherwise. If you sign it, you shouldn't complain about it.
I'm not saying the recruitment stuff the army has is nice or that I'd sign it as well, but he did sign it so he should learn to live with the consequences. If he thinks that this is morally wrong or whatever, he should have never signed that contract. It's hard, but that's the way it goes.
Problem today is that most contracts are so long and complicated that you'd need a lawyer to be aware of what you're actually signing there. :dizzy2:
HoreTore
11-22-2007, 21:14
No it wouldn't , the morally right and fair part would be decent incapacitated veterans services and benefits , not bonus payments for a non-fulfilled contract .
Asking them to pay money back is not fair at all. And hey tribes, that's not for you to decide anyhow, the judge of that would be the american public, and I highly doubt that they agree with you.
HoreTore
11-22-2007, 21:18
If you sign it, you shouldn't complain about it.
Not true generally, if the contract you signed violates the law, then the contract is invalid.
Wow, talk about a biased report. Anyway, AS someone who has recieved bonuses in the military, once for enlisting and once for reenlisting, bonuses are bonuses for what you provide. If you cannot uphold your commitment stipulated in the bonus contract (which is read before signing and explained to you as well by MEPS and the MPF), then guess what, you don't get your bonus and you have to pay back what you've already recieved because you did not fullfill your agreement.
Is that from the same playbook that says to leave your buddy in the field to die 'cause he was stupid enough to get shot?
I hear the commies do that....
:army::army::army: One for one and none for all. Hoo-AHH!
Tribesman
11-22-2007, 22:51
Asking them to pay money back is not fair at all.
Of course its fair , if you are paid money on condition that you fulfill the terms under which the money is given yet do not fulfill those terms then it is unfair to not give it back .
If I paid you money on condition that you unblocked every gully on a road and you only unblocked half the gullies would you be entitled to keep the money or would it be fair if I took half the money back ? (though if it was me I would have included a clause that said I can take all the money back and claim costs and interest against you:whip: )
Boyar Son
11-22-2007, 23:02
Too right , if the bonus is for fulfilling a term of service then failure to fulfill that term negates your right to the bonus .
It is a job , getting blown up may be part of the job , if you are not happy with those job conditions then don't accept the contract .
Screw them , the job also has payments that covers injuries for getting blown up , take that and don't moan that the term bonus is lost .
That may be cruel, but that is cold heartedly true.
Goofball
11-23-2007, 01:37
Of course its fair , if you are paid money on condition that you fulfill the terms under which the money is given yet do not fulfill those terms then it is unfair to not give it back .
If I paid you money on condition that you unblocked every gully on a road and you only unblocked half the gullies would you be entitled to keep the money or would it be fair if I took half the money back ? (though if it was me I would have included a clause that said I can take all the money back and claim costs and interest against you:whip: )
It comes down to who accepts which portion of the occupational hazard risk.
Traditionally, at least in democratic countries, it has been for the soldier to accept the physical risk (death or maiming) of going to war. It has been for a grateful government to accept the financial risk (spending x amount of dollars to train a soldier only to have him die or be wounded his first day in theater, then have to bear the cost of supporting him in future years) of sending men to war. This has pretty much been the social contract between citizen soldiers and their elected leaders in modern, free nations.
Tribes, if you can not see the intellectual difference between failing to unblock gullies because, oh I don't know, a guy got drunk and didn't complete the job, and failing to complete a tour of duty because you got your legs blown off, then I respectfully submit that you are being deliberately obtuse with respect to this matter.
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 04:30
Again, its a bonus that has stipulations that need to be fullfilled. And its not bonuses just for the "unpopular" Iraq war. I recieved all of mine during peace time both times. They do it for critical fields and stuff as well. But I never had to pay back my bonuses because I fullfilled those contracts. If I were to have been injured during that time and could not complete the agreement as perscibed by said contract then I would have to pay it back. Its been like that since Adam was a private and Eve was a dorm ho.
Its not even a moral arguement. The injured vets will get a salary for life from the VA. Its part of the risk with the CHOICE the troops made when they signed up in the first place. It is still an all volunter force whether you like it or not.
What is so hard to comprehend here?
:wall:
Oh, and allow me to say this... TRIBES IS 100% CORRECT ON THIS. Now please excuse me, I'm going to go take a extremly hot shower with lots and lots of disinfectant soap. ;)
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 04:47
Is that from the same playbook that says to leave your buddy in the field to die 'cause he was stupid enough to get shot?
I hear the commies do that....
:army::army::army: One for one and none for all. Hoo-AHH!
Have you ever read or signed a contract?
PanzerJaeger
11-23-2007, 05:09
I'm tickled pink at this thread, simply because Dave and Tribesy are on the same side.
And now, I will ask both of you to give your heads a good, hard, shake.
The military is offering signing bonuses in part because the Iraq war is fairly unpopular, and known to be very dangerous, which makes recruiting for same a more difficult proposition. So, they offer people $$ to sign up. Fair enough.
So now, let's leave the obvious (at least to anybody with a moral compass that hasn't lost its magnetism) answer (that it is nothing but dirty trickery to take money back from a soldier because he has gone over and been wounded performing his duty) out of this for a second.
How about this: the military gives bonuses to boost recruiting in difficult times, so how much more difficult (and more expensive) will it now be for recruiters to make their quotas when word gets out that soldiers are getting screwed out of that money at a time in their life when they need it most?
This is a simple case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
True on both counts. Its not the right thing to do to our servicemen and its not a smart business decision as far as further recruiting is concerned.
"Hey daddy, I want to join the army just like you!"
"Well Johnny, I told you how I lost my legs, now let me tell you how the government treated me."
"Hey daddy, will you pay for law school?"
Have you ever read or signed a contract?
Of course. I read a copy of a purchase contract once made between two men. A seller and a buyer. The text was clear, as were the price and conditions of the sale. All was in accordance with law. But somehow the negro being sold wasn't really able to appreciate the finer points of what those two white men were doing.
Legal or not, wrong is wrong.
HoreTore
11-23-2007, 08:01
Of course its fair , if you are paid money on condition that you fulfill the terms under which the money is given yet do not fulfill those terms then it is unfair to not give it back .
If I paid you money on condition that you unblocked every gully on a road and you only unblocked half the gullies would you be entitled to keep the money or would it be fair if I took half the money back ? (though if it was me I would have included a clause that said I can take all the money back and claim costs and interest against you:whip: )
I WOULD say that being injured by the enemy in a war is a rather special situation, one that warrants special treatment. Asking an injured soldier to pay money back is simply wrong and unjust, both morally and ethically. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not, as Beirut said, wrong is wrong.
If I work at a shop for example, and then get robbed, should my employer deduct the hours I wasn't able to work because of the robbery from my pay check? Let's say I got my pay in advance, should I pay him back for those hours I was tied up and unable to work?
Of course. I read a copy of a purchase contract once made between two men. A seller and a buyer. The text was clear, as were the price and conditions of the sale. All was in accordance with law. But somehow the negro being sold wasn't really able to appreciate the finer points of what those two white men were doing.
Legal or not, wrong is wrong.
I have difficulty understanding how you can compare a contract between two men to own an another man as a piece of property, to one where both parties voluntarily signed the contract.
I WOULD say that being injured by the enemy in a war is a rather special situation, one that warrants special treatment. Asking an injured soldier to pay money back is simply wrong and unjust, both morally and ethically. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not, as Beirut said, wrong is wrong.
Sure it matters. Legality is legality. The man was under no distress, nor did anyone force him to enter into a binding contract under those terms with the United States Government.
Unless he wasn't of sound mind at the time of signature, I don't really see him getting off the hook.
If I work at a shop for example, and then get robbed, should my employer deduct the hours I wasn't able to work because of the robbery from my pay check? Let's say I got my pay in advance, should I pay him back for those hours I was tied up and unable to work?
That depends. I'm not familiar with contract law in Norway, nor the contract you signed when you were employed.
Edit:
if the contract you signed violates the law, then the contract is invalid.
Yes, that is correct.
__________________
HoreTore
11-23-2007, 09:07
Sure it matters. Legality is legality.
No, it doesn't matter at all, as this is a political issue, not a legal issue. This is about changing their contract terms so that they don't have to pay this money back should they get injured.
And, as I assume that the vast majority of americans do not think it's right to treat their soldiers like crap, this crap shouldn't continue for long. The democrats have a lot to gain by showing voters that THEY are the ones giving the soldiers what they deserve, and the republicans have everything to gain by not giving that honour to the democrats. So it really shouldn't be a problem to fix this(bureaucracy aside).
That depends. I'm not familiar with contract law in Norway, nor the contract you signed when you were employed.
There are no laws covering such a situation, there is no need for it, as the answer is so extremely obvious. Of course I should get paid. To say otherwise is completely and utterly ridiculous.
Lemur,
Would you be surprised that this practice has been ongoing since the all volunteer force has been in place, and maybe before then to, enlistment bonus were around before the all volunteer force I believe. I know several soldiers who during peacetime were injuried in the performance of their duties. They had to pay back their enlistment bonus in exchange for a payment for thier injuries in the form of a disablity check once a month.
Do I agree with the practice - No. But once again its not a new practice at all.
The legality is that yes indeed the Government is entitled to have its money returned because of the failure to fullfill the contract, one must indeed read the contract and the small print of said contract. Is it morally and ethically sound - well once again I believe no.
No, it doesn't matter at all, as this is a political issue, not a legal issue. This is about changing their contract terms so that they don't have to pay this money back should they get injured.
There's the capitalistic way to do that, don't sign the contract until the terms suit you. If enough people refuse to sign up until they get the terms they want, then the army might change the terms because they need these men.
Great idea, soldiers just need that little extra motivation to not get shot.
HoreTore
11-23-2007, 11:41
There's the capitalistic way to do that, don't sign the contract until the terms suit you. If enough people refuse to sign up until they get the terms they want, then the army might change the terms because they need these men.
But that's the problem with capitalism, enough people won't do that and/or it will take much longer than political action. And since when did a nation's security turn into a question for the market, instead of a political question?
Oh well. I suppose there are some nutjobs who are dying to privatize the military... And of course, there would have to be several competing armies, as monopolies can't be allowed.. We non-capitalists call such a situation a civil war.
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 13:09
But that's the problem with capitalism, enough people won't do that and/or it will take much longer than political action. And since when did a nation's security turn into a question for the market, instead of a political question?
Oh well. I suppose there are some nutjobs who are dying to privatize the military... And of course, there would have to be several competing armies, as monopolies can't be allowed.. We non-capitalists call such a situation a civil war.
Are there no contracts in your little socialst utopia?
macsen rufus
11-23-2007, 13:38
Would it not be easier just to pay these bonuses upon completion of the term of service? That way, no clawbacks, clear contractual obligations for both sides, and a nice golden handshake as GIs go back into civvy street.... And if they're injured/invalided out along the way, then a pro-rata award would be acceptable as an addition to whatever support would be due in respect of medical needs. Although I'm sure completing the term and getting out in one piece must seem like hell of a bonus in itself for anyone getting sent to Iraq.
But that sounds too simple to work, what have I overlooked???
Pharnakes
11-23-2007, 13:38
They want/need men now?
So they give them money now?
Ironside
11-23-2007, 14:08
But that sounds too simple to work, what have I overlooked???
Human greed of (lack of) human sence. You know getting the money then, won't recruit the people that needs money now.
And yes I agree that getting payed after makes more sence than being forced to pay the money back.
I have difficulty understanding how you can compare a contract between two men to own an another man as a piece of property, to one where both parties voluntarily signed the contract.
Me too. Sometimes my imagination soars like a penguin with an air miles card.
The point was that just because something is legal, it's not necessarily moral. In this case, it's incredibly immoral.
I will never understand how anyone could have an affinity for the present US administration. The way they waste the lives of their own people and inhumanely neglect those did their duty is unconscionable. It's beyond all capacity to reason how anyone, anywhere could support them.
In this case, it's incredibly immoral.
Agree there, besides the money the message says 'you failed us', they deserve support and recognision
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 17:25
Me too. Sometimes my imagination soars like a penguin with an air miles card.
The point was that just because something is legal, it's not necessarily moral. In this case, it's incredibly immoral.
I will never understand how anyone could have an affinity for the present US administration. The way they waste the lives of their own people and inhumanely neglect those did their duty is unconscionable. It's beyond all capacity to reason how anyone, anywhere could support them.
War and the capacity to wage it is never moral. If you want to be a beacon of morality, then choose a different career field, because the truest reason for a military is kill things and break stuff. Nice try on making it a slave anology, the only problem is that the guys and gals serving weren't knocked over the head by fellow tribesmen and sold to Whitey for exploitation. Its cute though watching liberals such as yourself and Lemur trying to paint the military member as too stupid to understand the contract he/she signs or being too desperate for money they risk their very being for it. Again, have you ever read or signed a contract?:beam:
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 17:32
Agree there, besides the money the message says 'you failed us', they deserve support and recognision
They get support and recognision. They recieve disability payments for the rest of thier lives and medals and other benifits. Again, its stipulated in the contract that you have certain conditions you must maintain in order to keep your bonus. If there wasn't any, I can only imagine how much money would be wasted by people signing, getting the money, then announcing they prefer the company of the same sex.
Conract yeah, but it's exactly the way it shouldn't be, in the end you punish them for getting shot up, what happened to the purple heart hero stuff. If I was a soldier it wouldn't exactly motivate me to take any risks, after all it isn't really a welcome home if it goes wrong, I believe it gives the wrong signal.
Kralizec
11-23-2007, 18:06
In general I have little sympathy for people who claim to be screwed financially while they should have been aware of it in advance by reading what they signed for. That said I see why this is being perceived as harsh.
The system would probably have been better if the bonus would be paid in quarterly terms and that you get to keep all that you've received.
They get support and recognision. They recieve disability payments for the rest of thier lives and medals and other benifits. Again, its stipulated in the contract that you have certain conditions you must maintain in order to keep your bonus. If there wasn't any, I can only imagine how much money would be wasted by people signing, getting the money, then announcing they prefer the company of the same sex.
Post was directed was at first reply. If they are cared for I have less trouble with it, but maybe it should be issued afterwards as an extra, because it might sting, or at least seem unfair, that somehow it is told to them that they failed somehow. They already had a terrible time they can't use something on top of that.
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 18:21
, I believe it gives the wrong signal.
Actually Lemur posting bias articles because he believes that the US is controlled by the military industrial complex and so in inherently evil gives the wrong signal. When I enlisted and recieved my initial bonus it was explained to me what had to be accomplished to keep my enlistment bonus. The same theng happened when I reenlisted. I talked to the MPF (military personnel flight, I'm not sure what the other services call it) and read the contract in which I was signing (which, I thought, was a reasonable and responsible thing to do, unfortunately it appears many here don't believe in personal responsibility) which also stipulated certain guidances as to keeping my bonus.
Its a nice try by Lemur and the article's author, its just unfortunately and probably intentionally lacking in actual truth and is only geared toward weak emotional philosophical response. I could be wrong, but atleast my responses have been based on fact and personal experience and not based on emotional mentsration and strange silly attempts of envoking the spirits of dead slaves.:laugh4:
Hey Lumberjack, it must be great to be a mod, you've personally given me warnings for less that the drivel you've posted in this thread....comrade...:beam:
War and the capacity to wage it is never moral.
I think you are wrong. But assuming you are not, that means the war in Iraq is an immoral war. Do you blame the Republican leadership for the immoral war or the American soldiers?
Its cute though watching liberals such as yourself and Lemur trying to paint the military member as too stupid to understand the contract he/she signs or being too desperate for money they risk their very being for it.
Quite the contrary. I think Lemur and I are painting the military members as being far too valuable to be treated in such a callous way by those who sit on their fat behinds and order others off to war.
Mind you, I find it very surprising that you hold the US soldier in such total disregard that you support his disenfranchisement, moral, physical, and financial, on account of his being wounded in battle. Contrary to your usual fervent defense of the American and Christian points of view in these forums, I find your point of view in this matter neither based on American social values nor Christian in ethics. But you may correct me at your leisure if I am mistaken.
Again, have you ever read or signed a contract?:beam:
Many. But if you are to base the value of your brother's life on the expedient financial aspects of contractual fine print, well, as I said before, that doesn't sound very American to me.
Hey Lumberjack, it must be great to be a mod, you've personally given me warnings for less that the drivel you've posted in this thread....comrade...:beam:
If I was out of line and a Backroom mod asks me to step back in, you will have corrections to my post and my apologies in short order. :bow:
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 18:24
Post was directed was at first reply. If they are cared for I have less trouble with it, but maybe it should be issued afterwards as an extra, because it might sting, or at least seem unfair, that somehow it is told to them that they failed somehow. They already had a terrible time they can't use something on top of that.
Good point, but this is how its been done, as Redleg said, for a very long time.
But that's the problem with capitalism, enough people won't do that and/or it will take much longer than political action.
And enough people never complained about having to pay the money back, maybe because they didn't mind and actually knew what contract they were signing.
Oh well. I suppose there are some nutjobs who are dying to privatize the military... And of course, there would have to be several competing armies, as monopolies can't be allowed.. We non-capitalists call such a situation a civil war.
There are the Marines already, they compete with the army concerning recruitment though they have less problems getting the men they need.
When I enlisted and recieved my initial bonus it was explained to me what had to be accomplished to keep my enlistment bonus.
But a grunt has so little control over breaking it, puts responsebily in the wrong place, what if he gets hurts because of poor leadership? Maybe this thing should be get rid of entirely, sounds like a home-at-the-barracks thing to avoid soldiers from getting drunk.
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 18:34
If I was out of line and a Backroom mod asks me to step back in, you will have corrections to my post and my apologies in short order. :bow:
Not necessary, the mods currently in the backroom know the are better at distinquishing between good and bad posts and use their powers without any personal biases, unlike some mods in the past. :bow:
Dat otay Massa?:yes:
Actually Lemur posting bias articles because he believes that the US is controlled by the military industrial complex and so in inherently evil gives the wrong signal. When I enlisted and recieved my initial bonus it was explained to me what had to be accomplished to keep my enlistment bonus. The same theng happened when I reenlisted. I talked to the MPF (military personnel flight, I'm not sure what the other services call it) and read the contract in which I was signing (which, I thought, was a reasonable and responsible thing to do, unfortunately it appears many here don't believe in personal responsibility) which also stipulated certain guidances as to keeping my bonus.
Its a nice try by Lemur and the article's author, its just unfortunately and probably intentionally lacking in actual truth and is only geared toward weak emotional philosophical response. I could be wrong, but atleast my responses have been based on fact and personal experience and not based on emotional mentsration and strange silly attempts of envoking the spirits of dead slaves.:laugh4:
Technically Dave your right, if the terms of the contract were breached the party who breached the contract isnt entitled to the financial awards, particularly if there is a clause in it regarding ability to perform.
You are also correct in your assertion to the bias of the article as it didnt list his branch of service or the bonus money he is to repay. The bonus structures currently run concurrent with service time, not necessarily a lump sum bonus. As you probably know you can get incriments in your monthly pay stipend, or actual days off.
There are also SRB's which are used for specialists and can be lump sum. Chances are this kid took the standard elistment bonus which usually translates into a bump in monthly wage only. It does mean he has to fill out his enlistment, and the bonus dosent kick in until basic is done.
All that said, its not the correct approach. Your arguing a technicality (which is a valid argument) but the discussion is more along the lines of the moral argument which the liberals tend to lean on, and its hard to argue. Im not suggesting submission, but you have made your point no one can dispute it.
Now the question is when do they become "unable to serve"? Thats the rub, thats a military designation so uncle sam gets to cut off the contract terms at his discretion based on the injury. Thats my beef with it.
Louis VI the Fat
11-23-2007, 19:02
I love the reversal of roles in this thread! Tribes and DevDave versus Goofball and Panzer. :2thumbsup:
the morally right and fair part would be decent incapacitated veterans services and benefits , not bonus payments for a non-fulfilled contract .Tribes has got a point I think. If incapacitated veterans are being fairly compensated, then this whole thing is, well maybe miserly, but not any great outrage.
Redleg, DevDave, anyone know about financial compensation for servicemen and women injured while serving their contract?
If not, I'll agree with PJ: 'Its not the right thing to do to American servicemen and its not a smart business decision as far as further recruiting is concerned'.
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 19:12
Mind you, I find it very surprising that you hold the US soldier in such total disregard that you support his disenfranchisement, moral, physical, and financial, on account of his being wounded in battle. Contrary to your usual fervent defense of the American and Christian points of view in these forums, I find your point of view in this matter neither based on American social values nor Christian in ethics. But you may correct me at your leisure if I am mistaken.
.
LOL, you're far from right. Nice try though on making me look like I could care less about troops but if you're so concerned, maybe you should get your US citizenship, do 10 years in the Air Force, and work for the DOD after you get out. Then you can be a better judge of my character. But that's just not your style is it. You're funny, you'll send me PM's and warnings about my posts and here you are doing atacking my character. Is breaking contracts a value of CHristian (which I am no longer)and American social ethics? You are your own joke my friend, but please feel free to reveal to all what you really are; a hypocrit too high upon the ivory tower to see his own hypocricy from us little org peons holding mirrors below. You should go back to frontroom where you're still respected for doing such a grand job of making sure there's no watermarks on some T&A pics for the delitement of masterbating teens throughout the world. later....:laugh4:
Oh, I'll just delete this post for the moment. My apologies.
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 19:23
Redleg, DevDave, anyone know about financial compensation for servicemen and women injured while serving their contract?
.
Yes, you get disablity. Its based on what % you are disabled. Basically, if you get an injury while active or activated, you are paid for the rest of your life on your rank base pay during the time of the accident. For example, a buddy of mine got injured when he fell off a ladder when he was a SSgt layin cable. He hurt his shoulder and the doctors declared him 20% disabled. He is out now after 8 years of service. He gets 20% of his base pay for the remainder of his life (his wife will recieve this pay after he dies until she dies if he dies before her). He also recieves pay increases anytime the pay grade of SSgt goes up year from year.
A guy I work with now gets 70% of Sgt pay from a gernade wound he recieved in Vietnam. He'll get that as well till the end of his days. So yes, you do get compensated for injuries during duty. Hell I've known guys that have hurt their backs playing volleyball and get a check from Uncle Sam monthly. I'm not making light, I'm just saying that the article, Lemur, and Bierut are talking more out of their imaginations than they are based on full facts of the situations.
I'm sure this thread will be closed soon since I've made my points and proved, once again, that someone might possibly be wrong and we just can't have that can we....
I'm sure this thread will be closed soon since I've made my points and proved, once again, that someone might possibly be wrong and we just can't have that can we....
:7jester:
Tribesman
11-23-2007, 19:57
Tribes, if you can not see the intellectual difference between failing to unblock gullies because, oh I don't know, a guy got drunk and didn't complete the job, and failing to complete a tour of duty because you got your legs blown off, then I respectfully submit that you are being deliberately obtuse with respect to this matter.
Not in the slightest .
How about a proper scenario then Goof , say for example the trap fell and caused him to lose his arm , maybe he got crushed by a machine , got impaled by a rod or simply lost his eyes when a hose burst ......should he get the bonus for completing the job even though he didn't complete it ?
No way.... however he can make a claim to other monies not related to the bonus .
I have no objection to this thread staying open and Dave sharing his insights with us. And I do apologize for any personal remarks by me that may have been taken as offensive.
Perhaps the Debate Thread would be a better place for Dave and I to discuss matters. I understand I am asking my intellectual superior to come down a level, but I'm sure he's gentleman enough to do me the service. Perhaps socialized medicine would be a good topic.
Care to dance, DD?
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 20:20
I have no objection to this thread staying open and Dave sharing his insights with us. And I do apologize for any personal remarks by me that may have been taken as offensive.
Perhaps the Debate Thread would be a better place for Dave and I to discuss matters. I understand I am asking my intellectual superior to come down a level, but I'm sure he's gentleman enough to do me the service. Perhaps socialized medicine would be a good topic.
Care to dance, DD?
Not really, I'm too much of a pussy to go one on one with you, my axe weilding friend. You know you'd win, you're much smarter than I am. I'm not trying to be obtuse or cold hearted, I just know a biased article posted and defended by people with agendas and I'm just trying to present facts on the matter and you're doing what I've done a million times. Good show old champ, but its my job to be the troll dammit!!!
But feel free to talk to a United States Air Force recruiter or MPF memeber to get a better understanding as to how you, Lemur, and the article's author might want to research the subject more.
With that, I'll post more later if anyone intends to post some actual facts than just musings of one's own moral code.
Oh and no need to offer false apologies, good word play by the way. You are a true Orger and its good to see the old guard rekindle the fires of past furnaces that use to burn in these old halls. Ah, memories. :laugh4:
You know Beirut, i do miss those days when we can go all out and slam each other with no or little reprocussions. Then you had to go and it all respectable and stuff. I hate you for it!!!:laugh4:
Did I miss an obvious invitation for a discussion about socialised medicine somewhere or do we have a DUAL
gluv is there...
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 20:28
Did I miss an obvious invitation for a discussion about socialised medicine somewhere or do we have a DUAL
gluv is there...
Nope, I'm too much of a coward.:yes:
Nope, I'm too much of a coward.:yes:
Or a gentleman. I'm never really sure. :sunny:
Louis VI the Fat
11-23-2007, 20:49
T&A pics for the delightement of masturbating teens throughout the world. later....:laugh4:Well that is very offensive!....
....I and many others are not teens!
I just know a biased article posted and defended by people with agendas Maybe, just maybe, some people were advocating the agenda of proper treatment of America's veterans? Arguing that people who served America and paid a high, sometimes, excruciatingly high, price for that should be treated with all due respect?
And they want this despite Bush, despite being against any war in Iraq. I am a bit surprised that an ex-army man like you should be so offended by this point of view.
I would swap a signing bonus for a proper incapacitated veterans financial plan, yes, but I can see where their outrage comes from. Some bloke is send to Iraq, his legs are blown off, and then a DoD bean counter calculates to the minute what percentage of his signing bonus he needs to pay back. At the very least, that doesn't sound very considerate, does it?
Vladimir
11-23-2007, 21:32
Well that is very offensive!....
....
And they want this despite Bush, despite being against any war in Iraq. I am a bit surprised that an ex-army man like you should be so offended by this point of view.
Whoa, now it's MY turn to be offended. DD wishes he was man enough to have been in the Army.
If this case is legitimate I think it's good that it was revealed. What is bad is how many are using it to fuel their irrational Bush hatred. Again, this is most likely a result of bureaucracy. I can't see the logic in demanding they repay reenlistment bonuses when they were wounded in combat and will be receiving a check for the rest of their life. If it's a bureaucracy flaw, I hope this report encourages the Army to fix it.
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 21:53
Whoa, now it's MY turn to be offended. DD wishes he was man enough to have been in the Army. .
Ouch, that left a mark.:beam:
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 21:55
Well that is very offensive!....
....I and many others are not teens!
Maybe, just maybe, some people were advocating the agenda of proper treatment of America's veterans? Arguing that people who served America and paid a high, sometimes, excruciatingly high, price for that should be treated with all due respect?
And they want this despite Bush, despite being against any war in Iraq. I am a bit surprised that an ex-army man like you should be so offended by this point of view.
I would swap a signing bonus for a proper incapacitated veterans financial plan, yes, but I can see where their outrage comes from. Some bloke is send to Iraq, his legs are blown off, and then a DoD bean counter calculates to the minute what percentage of his signing bonus he needs to pay back. At the very least, that doesn't sound very considerate, does it?
Do they have contracts in France?
Sasaki Kojiro
11-23-2007, 22:39
Seems to me that the only issue is the enlistment bonus being misleadingly named.
Getting disibility pay is what is right for those injured in war.
As I said earlier, it's highly unusual for a "bonus" to be prorated over a term of service. It should probably be called something else, and it certainly shouldn't be paid out if it stands to be garnished. People who are not cash-savvy will use the money at hand, and be in for a surprise when it's demanded back.
Seriously, I have never been paid a bonus which could be recovered by anyone short of the mafia or the IRS.
Devastatin' Dave, skipping past your long and gratuitous ad hominem attacks, you're quite right that a contract is a contract. Having wrangled with contract law a few times myself, I know that you're not as correct as you think you are (contracts can contain unenforceable, contradictory or illegal clauses, for example), but from a legal perspective this is an open-and-shut case. Which does not make it a wise or good policy.
I'll take a moment to flatten your strawman: Nobody is suggesting (besides you) that soldiers who end their term of service for any other reason than being wounded should be exempt from having this money garnished. (Note your thoroughly dishonest example of people declaring they're gay the moment they get their enlistment bonus.) What we're talking about is soldiers who have been honorably wounded in battle, in service to their country.
Now, you've made the point about the legality of the contract six or seven times, so please move on to either a new point or a new perspective. Do you think the current structure of the bonus system is wise?
Two supplementary thoughts: Money paid which can be recovered if a project or term of service isn't fulfilled would be called an "advance" in the business world. So to call it a bonus probably causes confusion from the get-go.
Looks as though the gentleman in question will not be forced to pay back his signing money. Here's yet another biased article, with an update. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gzCEcs0j0W6YTBlw6efIp9GhHajQD8T34BV80) Soldiers who are injured or become ill while on active duty can keep all sign-up bonuses due them, the Army said.
I love happy endings.
Hey, DD, does this mean the U.S. Army is also a French/gay/liberal/vegan bastion of intellectual laziness? If your and Treibesman's positions were so unassailable, why did the Army choose to "clarify" the policy?
Feh, you'd oppose milk for babies and lettuce for rabbits if Al Gore advocated it.
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 23:45
. Do you think the current structure of the bonus system is wise?
Well, you never asked that... and I'll answer it... No, the current structure is not wise.:beam:
Devastatin Dave
11-23-2007, 23:48
Hey, DD, does this mean the U.S. Army is also a French/gay/liberal/vegan bastion of intellectual laziness?
.
Only if you or Al Gore ran it.:beam:
Tribesman
11-24-2007, 02:20
If your and Treibesman's positions were so unassailable, why did the Army choose to "clarify" the policy?
Well thats an easy one Lemur , it ain't rocket science is it , the armed forces are desperate for recruits and are desperate to avoid more bad press about how they treat the wounded .
Which would imply that the original pay-me-back stance would create bad publicity, which implies it is unfair. I already noted that it's perfectly legal to create a weird pseudo-bonus which has to be paid back, a point which you and DD harped on incessantly. And I don't ever recall asking whether it was legal, my strawman-defeating friend.
Devastatin Dave
11-24-2007, 03:55
Two supplementary thoughts: Money paid which can be recovered if a project or term of service isn't fulfilled would be called an "advance" in the business world. So to call it a bonus probably causes confusion from the get-go.
Looks as though the gentleman in question will not be forced to pay back his signing money. Here's yet another biased article, with an update. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gzCEcs0j0W6YTBlw6efIp9GhHajQD8T34BV80) Soldiers who are injured or become ill while on active duty can keep all sign-up bonuses due them, the Army said.
I love happy endings.
Hey, DD, does this mean the U.S. Army is also a French/gay/liberal/vegan bastion of intellectual laziness? If your and Treibesman's positions were so unassailable, why did the Army choose to "clarify" the policy?
Feh, you'd oppose milk for babies and lettuce for rabbits if Al Gore advocated it.
My good trusted love monkey Lemur....
After reading your last post and in particular the sentence "Soldiers who are injured or become ill...." I have looked up the Army reg on enlistment bonuses and reenlistment bonuses and low and behold, according to Army reg 601-280, on page 24, you and the majority of fellows I have spent the past two days argueing with are correct.
http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r601%5F280.pdf
I offer my sincerist apologies and now for a fact to always remember what my mamma taught me as a young child, "Son, never ally yourself with a Tribesman":beam:
But seriously, sorry Beirut, Lemur, and the rest. I did enjoy the 15 k I got from my bonuses regardless of how much my memory serves when it becomes to the particulars of my agreement. Now I'm off to sign one of those high-risk adjustable rate loans!!! Just kidding...
Sorry guys, hugs and kisses....
Devastatin Dave
11-24-2007, 03:59
Which would imply that the original pay-me-back stance would create bad publicity, which implies it is unfair. I already noted that it's perfectly legal to create a weird pseudo-bonus which has to be paid back, a point which you and DD harped on incessantly. And I don't ever recall asking whether it was legal, my strawman-defeating friend. You and DD went to town like a couple of low-rent lawyers, utterly ignoring the moral aspect of the question, each to serve your own little political agenda.
I was kind of wondering why DD introduced homosexuality into a thread about military pay, but then I saw this (http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics), and it kinda answered my question. Seems the modern people who call themselves "conservatives" have something on their mind ...
Garshdammit, just when I finished typinga reply with a thought out apology to you, I see this latest post. I wish that one day you are sodomised my a crazed taxi cab driver with a hurrendous case of herpes and is completed infested with crabs. Good day to you Sir...:furious3:
:beam:
Hah! And I read your thoughtful retraction, edited out the most offensive bits of my post, only to see it quoted moments later. Oh, the irony! I'd say more, but I'm being sodomized by a crazed taxi driver.
Devastatin Dave
11-24-2007, 04:02
God, you're making me hot with this delicious abuse, care to play Republican Senator and do some foot-tappin?:laugh4:
KukriKhan
11-24-2007, 04:28
aaaaand...
fade to grey.
roll credits.
This episode of "He said, He said - but HE SAID" was brought to you by...
Heinz Ketchup, full of lycopene and other good stuff that emerging science says is mmm, mmm good for ya. Pick up a 32-ouncer today, and enjoy the good times.
------
Thanks for all contributions. :bow: Thread closed.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.