Common Ground Common Sense > Dems aim to increase army size

Desron

Jul 21 2005, 09:54 PM

This was posted by Snuffy over at the Daily National and International News forum:

QUOTE

A team of Senate and House Democrats today are planning to introduce legislation today aimed at significantly increasing size of the U.S. Army.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services (SASC) airland subcommittee, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), a SASC member, and Reps. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), both members of the House Armed Services committee, are pressing for the passage of the United States Army Relief Act.

The legislation seeks to raise the cap of the Army’s end strength, said an aide to Tauscher.

The Army already is working on increasing its troop levels by 30,000. Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, has said on numerous occasions that it costs about $1.2 billion a year for every 10,000 people added to the Army.

Both the House and the Senate have called for an increase in troop levels in their 2006 defense authorization bill and it is likely that troop levels will be increased when the conferees meet.
Roxana Tiron

If the Army is having trouble meeting it's goals for 80,000 recruits this FY, I wonder how they are going to get even more recruits for another increase?

Frenchy

Jul 21 2005, 10:26 PM

The military is going to have to look at competing with the civilian market more than it has. But...until the US government starts some serious soul searching as to how it uses (sacrifices?) these troops, the problem will continue.

ETC1966

Aug 11 2005, 05:37 PM

QUOTE(Stephen @ Jul 21 2005, 09:26 PM)

The military is going to have to look at competing with the civilian market more than it has. But...until the US government starts some serious soul searching as to how it uses (sacrifices?) these troops, the problem will continue.

We've been competing with the private sector for recruits ever since we went to an all-volunteer military. The biggest problem right now is that the economy is doing too good. There are too many good civilian jobs available.

But, the Generals/Admirals are not worried, because assuming that Hillary Clinton gets elected in 2008, they know that she’ll jack-up taxes and the economy will tank and they will be able to have their pick of recruits from the long unemployment lines, like they did when Carter gave us double-digit unemployment. History will repeat itself; it's a cycle.

revenge

Aug 12 2005, 02:08 AM

It won't happen good luck. We can't afford another war the cost of transport is to high its oil.

Marine

Aug 12 2005, 08:39 AM

QUOTE(ETC1966 @ Aug 11 2005, 05:37 PM)

We've been competing with the private sector for recruits ever since we went to an all-volunteer military. The biggest problem right now is that the economy is doing too good. There are too many good civilian jobs available.

But, the Generals/Admirals are not worried, because assuming that Hillary Clinton gets elected in 2008, they know that she’ll jack-up taxes and the economy will tank and they will be able to have their pick of recruits from the long unemployment lines, like they did when Carter gave us double-digit unemployment. History will repeat itself; it's a cycle.

That's a true statement about the military competing with the private sector. And it's a factor on re-enlistments too. I can give you personal information on that.

In 1974 as I approached the end of my first enlistment the economy sucked, I had a family to support and knew for sure I could do it if I stayed in the Marines.

In 1978 as I approached the end of my second enlistment the economy sucked, I had a family to support and knew for sure I could do it if I stayed in the Marines.

in 1982 as I approached the end of my third enlistment I felt like I had too much invested time wise not to go for a twenty year retirement. Besides by then I had got where I really liked being a Marine.

Beamer

Aug 12 2005, 08:50 AM

QUOTE(ETC1966 @ Aug 11 2005, 03:37 PM)

We've been competing with the private sector for recruits ever since we went to an all-volunteer military. The biggest problem right now is that the economy is doing too good. There are too many good civilian jobs available.

But, the Generals/Admirals are not worried, because assuming that Hillary Clinton gets elected in 2008, they know that she’ll jack-up taxes and the economy will tank and they will be able to have their pick of recruits from the long unemployment lines, like they did when Carter gave us double-digit unemployment. History will repeat itself; it's a cycle.

Where are these good jobs? If the economy has improved, it has been very recent.

What makes you think the economy under Hillary would tank when the economy when her husband was president did very well, better than things are right now.

Marine

Aug 12 2005, 09:16 AM

QUOTE(beamer619 @ Aug 12 2005, 08:50 AM)

Where are these good jobs? If the economy has improved, it has been very recent.

What makes you think the economy under Hillary would tank when the economy when her husband was president did very well, better than things are right now.

Well, I retired about 10 days after the presidential election in 2000. For better than six months preceding my retirement we travelled all over the country interviewing for jobs. I even interviewed for one in San Diego Beamer.

I got the same answer everywhere I went, "I'm sorry, we got a hiring freeze on and aren't hiring anyone" or "We just laid of XXX people and aren't hiring right now" or "Gosh, you have really impressive credentials but we just aren't hiring anyone right now". Thus we bought a farm with our life savings.

So don't try to convince me the recession was Bush's, it was coming on well before he took office.

Last January I got a job as an accountant. I have been contacted by numerous people since then asking if I am still looking for work. Anyone who doesn't have a good job right now isn't looking hard.

I would suggest looking....... http://www.monster.com/

ETC1966

Aug 17 2005, 04:58 PM

QUOTE(ETC1966 @ Aug 11 2005, 04:37 PM)

We've been competing with the private sector for recruits ever since we went to an all-volunteer military. The biggest problem right now is that the economy is doing too good. There are too many good civilian jobs available.

But, the Generals/Admirals are not worried, because assuming that Hillary Clinton gets elected in 2008, they know that she’ll jack-up taxes and the economy will tank and they will be able to have their pick of recruits from the long unemployment lines, like they did when Carter gave us double-digit unemployment. History will repeat itself; it's a cycle.

QUOTE(beamer619 @ Aug 12 2005, 07:50 AM)

Where are these good jobs? If the economy has improved, it has been very recent.

What makes you think the economy under Hillary would tank when the economy when her husband was president did very well, better than things are right now.

Well, the best jobs come looking for you. I just lost one of my guys to a civilian job where he's making $20K/year more than me, and it's not even in the nuclear power industry. Whether you want to believe it or not the economy has been growing steadily for quite a while, fortunately it hasn't grown so fast as to cause inflation to shoot up. The only consumer price item that is really going up appreciably is gasoline prices. The oil prices are reaching record highs more due to rampant speculation rather than low supplies, so that is going to bite someone in the rump eventually, probably when the summer driving season ends around Labor Day.

I THINK the economy will tank under President Hillary Clinton because I'm assuming she'll raise taxes, which will put the brakes on the economy. The economy Bill Clinton initially enjoyed was doing well because of economic momentum from his predecessors, but his tax increases turned that around. Of course the media wasn't going to expose the down-turn, in fact, the media even tried to hide it before the 2000 election, but it was obvious that we were headed into a recession. Don’t forget the false indication of good economic times caused by the internet dot-BOMB bubble which sent the stock market skyrocketing under false pretenses. When it burst the “little people” lost billions, but the government had already collected huge amounts of taxes from all the false earnings reports, hence the supposed “budget surplus”.

david sobien

Aug 17 2005, 09:03 PM

ETC...I am a stock market investor. The Clinton years were some of the best of the last 100 years. That happened because the Federal Deficit was being lowered and finally reversed. The bond market really runs the world. With low interest rates the stock market does really well. Of course I mean long term rates. I think you will find in the long run you cannot borrow your way to prosperity like the Bush people think.

Pie

Aug 17 2005, 09:41 PM

QUOTE

The only consumer price item that is really going up appreciably is gasoline prices.

Been to the grocery store lately ?

And oil prices are going to push up the prices on everything else.

As for all the "good" jobs - where? Most of the jobs created have been in the service sector with little or no benefits and low pay.

Personal debt is at an all time high.

Once this bubble begins to burst, watch out.

ETC1966

Aug 25 2005, 12:38 PM

QUOTE(david sobien @ Aug 17 2005, 08:03 PM)

ETC...I am a stock market investor. The Clinton years were some of the best of the last 100 years. That happened because the Federal Deficit was being lowered and finally reversed. The bond market really runs the world. With low interest rates the stock market does really well. Of course I mean long term rates. I think you will find in the long run you cannot borrow your way to prosperity like the Bush people think.

David, you know full well that the stock market is just legalized gambling, and not an absolutely true reflection of the economy. The stock market didn't shoot up across the board anywhere near what the dot.BOMB stocks did. Any increases in your investments in the stock market are meaningless until you cash out. The federal government profited from the hyperbolic increase in the stock market as the insiders profited at the expense of the millions of "little guys".

I agree with you that they shouldn't be spending all the increased revenues that the tax cuts are generated. I guess they're gambling that the economic boom will outpace their spending spree. I hope they're right. I'm invested in the stock market too, but I'm a small potatoes individual.

Marine

Aug 25 2005, 12:55 PM

QUOTE(david sobien @ Aug 17 2005, 09:03 PM)

ETC...I am a stock market investor. The Clinton years were some of the best of the last 100 years. That happened because the Federal Deficit was being lowered and finally reversed. The bond market really runs the world. With low interest rates the stock market does really well. Of course I mean long term rates. I think you will find in the long run you cannot borrow your way to prosperity like the Bush people think.

I thought you was an IRS auditor David. Did you retire?

david sobien

Aug 25 2005, 10:31 PM

Marine..I retired from the IRS in January 2004. I was a GS-13 IRS agent. Thats equivelent to a Navy captian in rank if I wished to visit an officers club when I was working.

david sobien

Aug 25 2005, 10:43 PM

ETC..The stock market is not gambling. If you can read a balance sheet and keep up with the news you can make money. You will always have loosing stock positions. The way to make money is to keep them to a minimum. No matter how bad the economy is doing there are always companies doing well in America. You just have to find them. The economy is doing OK for now. However you need to be aware that the FEDERAL RESERVE is raising interest rates and that those rates need time to take effect. When they do the economy will slowdown. Thats the time to be in bonds and not stocks. I have always have been able to pick stocks that rise in value. My problem has always been knowing when to sell.

ETC1966

Aug 29 2005, 04:12 PM

QUOTE(david sobien @ Aug 25 2005, 09:43 PM)

ETC..The stock market is not gambling.

I hear the same thing from people gambling on the ponies.