AROCES Posted November 24, 2007 #76 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I don't think the soldiers care who fix's it as long as it gets fixed befor more wind up with messed up credit and added woe's. Maby Bush could apply a little preasure to get this injustice fixed. I agree, but should it take such authority to fix such problem? It should not even reach the Defense Secretary to fix such problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Warrior Posted November 24, 2007 #77 Share Posted November 24, 2007 (edited) When a soldier enlists, he signs a contract. If he breaks the contract then legally he is not entitled to keep a signing bonus. I am sure that is clearly stated in the paper work. Perhaps a better arrangement would be to pay the bonus AFTER they complete their duty. Or perhaps they should bring back the draft and eliminate the bonus all together. With that said, wounded soldiers should receive some compensation....wait they do. Disability payments for life. War is dangerous and is not a good career choice for an infantry soldier. FYI, this has nothing to do with Bush or "neocons". The op is simple using this tread to flame anyone not liberal. Edited November 24, 2007 by Aztec Warrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted November 24, 2007 #78 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I agree, but should it take such authority to fix such problem? It should not even reach the Defense Secretary to fix such problem. You'd think so but the Bush admin is a personality cult of idiots where everything flows from W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twpdyp Posted November 25, 2007 #79 Share Posted November 25, 2007 This policywas in existance before this administration. While I feel for the wounded I for one would not enlist in the military because they offered me a signing bonus. You enlist because you feel the call. Not for financial gain. While I do believe that there is something about this we do not know, if it is indeed true I think it stinks. Professional athletes continue getting paid if they are injured during the course of their participation. They are not required to refund monies paid to them, why should our soldiers be different. I will need to study this more. Were the recruits told of this before signing up? Did the recruits read their enlistment documents prior to signing them?Like I said I will have to call my son and ask him if he was told about this or if he read his enlistment papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twpdyp Posted November 25, 2007 #80 Share Posted November 25, 2007 This policywas in existance before this administration. While I feel for the wounded I for one would not enlist in the military because they offered me a signing bonus. You enlist because you feel the call. Not for financial gain. While I do believe that there is something about this we do not know, if it is indeed true I think it stinks. Professional athletes continue getting paid if they are injured during the course of their participation. They are not required to refund monies paid to them, why should our soldiers be different. I will need to study this more. Were the recruits told of this before signing up? Did the recruits read their enlistment documents prior to signing them?Like I said I will have to call my son and ask him if he was told about this or if he read his enlistment papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted November 25, 2007 #81 Share Posted November 25, 2007 You'd think so but the Bush admin is a personality cult of idiots where everything flows from W. More like the Bush hate crowd is now more like a cult, obsess with destroying or eliminating the elected President of the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewho? Posted November 25, 2007 Author #82 Share Posted November 25, 2007 More like the Bush hate crowd is now more like a cult, obsess with destroying or eliminating the elected President of the United States.Have you seen Bushs approval ratings lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted November 25, 2007 #83 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Have you seen Bushs approval ratings lately? Yeah, it was low that it was a shocker when the Democratic Congress had a lower rating than the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewho? Posted November 25, 2007 Author #84 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Yeah, it was low that it was a shocker when the Democratic Congress had a lower rating than the President.That still doesn't validate your previous statement which called non-Bush supporters a cult. Bush supporters are the extreme minority. If anything, they are the ones who are "cult-like". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
explorer Posted November 25, 2007 #85 Share Posted November 25, 2007 When a soldier enlists, he signs a contract. If he breaks the contract then legally he is not entitled to keep a signing bonus. I am sure that is clearly stated in the paper work. Perhaps a better arrangement would be to pay the bonus AFTER they complete their duty. Or perhaps they should bring back the draft and eliminate the bonus all together. With that said, wounded soldiers should receive some compensation....wait they do. Disability payments for life. War is dangerous and is not a good career choice for an infantry soldier. FYI, this has nothing to do with Bush or "neocons". The op is simple using this tread to flame anyone not liberal. If being injured on active duty in a war is a breach of contract then the heartless b****** syndrome has been drilled to a fathomless depth. Introduce a draft? One would atleast expect the absolute truth about why the soldiers are required instead of a spin campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted November 26, 2007 #86 Share Posted November 26, 2007 That still doesn't validate your previous statement which called non-Bush supporters a cult. Bush supporters are the extreme minority. If anything, they are the ones who are "cult-like". Then what do you call the Democrat supporter, extreme cult??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted November 26, 2007 #87 Share Posted November 26, 2007 This policywas in existance before this administration. While I feel for the wounded I for one would not enlist in the military because they offered me a signing bonus. You enlist because you feel the call. Not for financial gain. YOU might not enlist. But the fact remains that many do so for monetary gain. Have you seen the number of dollars we're offering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted November 26, 2007 #88 Share Posted November 26, 2007 YOU might not enlist. But the fact remains that many do so for monetary gain. Have you seen the number of dollars we're offering? You folks say we should pay the soldiers more and give them more benefits and compensation for what they do, and now that we pay them more you say most are only joining for the money. See how you just make whatever scenario a poltical score for your cause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewho? Posted November 26, 2007 Author #89 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Wounded vets asked to pay up Service members seriously wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan after they received a $10,000 bonus for enlisting are being asked by the Pentagon to repay portions of the incentive money, says a U.S. senator who calls the practice an example of military policy gone wrong. "A bill in the mail is not the kind of present our soldiers deserve in this holiday season," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. said. "Our veterans are not being treated with the dignity, respect and thanks that they deserve. It's just a disgrace." At a news conference Sunday, he said the policy remained in effect despite a report last July by a presidential commission that wounded veterans were being unfairly penalized by a requirement that enlistees must fulfill their entire term of service or lose a pro-rated portion of their bonus. He said that when the case of Jordan Fox, an Army sniper partially blinded by a roadside bomb in Iraq, was called to the Pentagon's attention, officials replied that the demand for him to repay $2,800 was a "clerical error" and canceled the debt. If the Mount Lebanon, Pa., soldier's case was an isolated incident, there has been no explanation of why hundreds of other wounded veterans have also received letters demanding repayment, Schumer said. "When you talk to the Pentagon, you get different answers from different people," he said. The numbers of veterans affected by the policy are not known. Schumer said his office had received several complaints, as had the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "Asking wounded service members to repay part of their enlistment bonuses is an outrage," IAVA Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff said in an e-mailed statement. Standing in front of a World War I memorial, Schumer called on the Department of Defense to conduct an internal investigation and audit to identify recently wounded personnel who received the dunning letters and assure them that repayments were not necessary. Source All too often when an Presidential administration wants to look sympathetic about a subject without really having to take action, they will produce a Presidential Commission. Which is basically a report stating the so called concerns. That's exactly what happened here. Last year when this subject gained more attention, the Bush administration released their Presidential Commission regarding wounded veterans being treated unfairly. But that was it, they took no further actions to fix this policy gone wrong and swept it under the rug. To this day, the Bush administration and Pentagon refuses to take any action in changing this policy and continues to bill wounded veterans. ...if the President wants to avoid taking action but still look concerned about an issue, he can convene a commission and then let it slip into obscurity... Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted November 26, 2007 #90 Share Posted November 26, 2007 I agree, but should it take such authority to fix such problem? It should not even reach the Defense Secretary to fix such problem. Your right it shouldn't heve reached the Dfence secretary, but who is fixing this? I have yet to see anything state the change in this policy. So now the Defence secretary should step up and take this by the horns and fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewho? Posted November 26, 2007 Author #91 Share Posted November 26, 2007 I agree, but should it take such authority to fix such problem? It should not even reach the Defense Secretary to fix such problem.Unfortunately this "problem" is actually a policy the Pentagon refuses to give up. So technically, it will have to take someone with high authority to make some changes. But that might be hard to comprehend if you are living in a world of denial and think these are simple billing mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted November 26, 2007 #92 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Your right it shouldn't heve reached the Defense secretary, but who is fixing this? I have yet to see anything state the change in this policy. So now the Defence secretary should step up and take this by the horns and fix it. And I have to see anything that say this is a policy, you get wounded in battle then the Army gets a refund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted November 26, 2007 #93 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Unfortunately this "problem" is actually a policy the Pentagon refuses to give up. So technically, it will have to take someone with high authority to make some changes. But that might be hard to comprehend if you are living in a world of denial and think these are simple billing mistakes. When did the Pentagon say it is their Policy? How many wounded soldier actually wrote a check to the Pentagon after being wounded in battle, does that mean the dead owes the Pentagon some refund too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewho? Posted November 26, 2007 Author #94 Share Posted November 26, 2007 And I have to see anything that say this is a policyI can't help it you chose to live in denial. Only you can change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted November 27, 2007 #95 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I can't help it you chose to live in denial. Only you can change that. Deny what? You see it is very simple to clear things, Pentagon shows that small fine print that all soldeirs have signed that in case they get wounded they have to return the compensation given to them in advance. And to Mr. Schumer, instead of grabbing a microphone and start blabbing he ought to look into what the soldiers signed when they enlisted and study the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewho? Posted November 27, 2007 Author #96 Share Posted November 27, 2007 You see it is very simple to clear things, Pentagon shows that small fine print that all soldeirs have signed that in case they get wounded they have to return the compensation given to them in advance.You just said it wasn't a policy. Now you are saying soldiers need to read the fine print. You flip-flop more than a fish out of the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted November 27, 2007 #97 Share Posted November 27, 2007 (edited) You just said it wasn't a policy. Now you are saying soldiers need to read the fine print. You flip-flop more than a fish out of the water. And you saying it is a policy, right? Well, I'm just saying it is easy to clear things up then, have the Pentagon show the fine print that was signed. Makes sense huh, that is why you went for the flip flop fish whatever respond. Edited November 27, 2007 by AROCES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewho? Posted November 27, 2007 Author #98 Share Posted November 27, 2007 And you saying it is a policy, right? Well, I'm just saying it is easy to clear things up then, have the Pentagon show the fine print that was signed. Makes sense huh, that is why you went for the flip flop fish whatever respond. The argument here isn't about if this policy exists or not (except maybe in your head) but rather or not it is an ethical practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted November 27, 2007 #99 Share Posted November 27, 2007 You folks say we should pay the soldiers more and give them more benefits and compensation for what they do, and now that we pay them more you say most are only joining for the money. See how you just make whatever scenario a poltical score for your cause? I don't know who "you folks" are but I certainly did not say it. Please get your facts straight. You want to lump anyone who doesn't agree with you with one brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted November 27, 2007 #100 Share Posted November 27, 2007 And I have to see anything that say this is a policy, you get wounded in battle then the Army gets a refund. Holy $hit, you actually said this? So when I buy a new car and have a 2 year warranty and G.M. says F yourself you drove the car wrong thats why the alternator went so suck it up! Thats like your goverment saying if you loose a leg it's your fault and defaults on the warranty. No wonder the number of enlistees are declining and the U.S. forces are dwindling. Hell all Americans that want out of Iraq come to Canada, we will find a way. Damn when my goverment wants a refund on my leg for me doing what they asked is the day I hate that goverment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now