C-3 !!! C-4 That is really bad. A C-5 combat readiness rating is the worse. Just a mob wearing uniforms who are about as capable of fighting a battle as a girl scout troop. A unit that is rated at C-1 is considered to be combat ready and capable of being deployed into combat and winning. Over the past decade a C-2 was acceptable but it wasn't acceptable back when I served in the Corps. What's interesting that the combat readiness of units use to be classified and kept classified for two years. When the military top brass are going public on our military's readiness ratings you know there is a problem and our CnC doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). How's Obama's Army doing ? How about that PC navy that has those Crappy Little Ships that can't fight ? How about Obama's Air Force ?
Hell, it is even worse then that. Because of "budget constraints", myself and another found out the hard way how that is relating to us. From mid February to March, myself and one other from my unit were placed on 21 day orders to assist other units in their annual training. Now I had done orders like this before, essentially you go on Active Duty, and get paid as if you were on Active Duty at the time. Half way through this, my wife called up wanting to know where my pay was. I had the NCO in charge of my unit check, and found out that because of "Mandated budget cuts", we are no longer paid during our training, but only paid afterwards. In other words, I am only to be paid after the 21 day training cycle ends, and even then 5-10 days afterwards. Well, my training ended March 12, and I have yet to see my pay. My wife and I are literally on the verge of eviction, because we are unable to make up the pay I am still waiting for from almost a month ago. My unit is making all kinds of inquiries, and unable to find out what the delay is, they are told it is "being processed". And when they asked me if I wanted to come in on orders for 2 weeks starting next week, I said no. There is simply no way I can take weeks away from my civilian job, and work when I will get paid whenever the government gets around to paying me a month or more later. And this is sure to affect a lot of others this year, this change in how we are paid on orders apparently kicked in this year, so few have had to deal with it yet. But I am sure as the year goes on, you will be hearing more cases of individuals like me. And if you have Reservists refusing to train because they are not getting paid for taking the time off work, what will that do to our readiness?
Sounds like they have incompetent people working in disbursing today. They are probably relying on a computer program ? If your Congressman is a Republican, you might want to drop a dime. But it's pretty blue up there in the Baghdad by the Bay.
The biggest problem is that nobody in my unit was aware of that change from "pay on payday" when on orders, to "hold all pay until after the mission is complete". If I had known that I would have turned down orders activating me for 3 weeks. No civilian job can go 3 weeks without paying you, and imagine what would happen if they took a month to pay you even after the job was done. But the Military, no problem. But it was the policy on reducing fraud and waste that made this change. Seems that an occasional person who has gone on orders lied and reported in then left, getting paid because often times nobody reported them as having left an exercise. Now all pay is held until it is all over, and they can verify we were there the entire time. The Ad personnel told me it was because of one of the President's "Fraud, Waste & Abuse" programs. But I can pretty much guarantee that no other department of the Government is getting shafted like this.
Dang this sequester thing sounds horrible Whose idea was that anyway I am pretty sure not obama And i am also pretty sure obama does not spend his time micromanaging the military
Actually, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was created by Senator Tom Harkin, a Democratic Senator from Iowa, and signed into law by President Obama in 2011. In fact, it was enthusiastically supported by Senate Democrats (45-6), Senate Republicans were much more mixed about this (28-19). "Who's idea" really does not matter, since the President almost never actually drafts laws, that is the job of Congress. But it was a Democratic idea, and the President was an enthusiastic supporter of it. And it is the job of the Executive to determine partially how it is enacted. And it really helps when you pay attention to facts, and not propaganda. For one, I am so fraking sick and tired of the insanely ignorant who consistently try to pass this off as a "Republican Scheme". It only shows how often that they have no idea what they are talking about, only repeating something they heard from somebody even more ignorant.
There are many reasons why the military is in bad shape, Obama is but one of them. Starting wars that we didn't need to get involved in is another (Iraq). Afghanistan was justified, Iraq wasn't. Sorry, but I don't buy into this notion that the Iraq war was needed to keep us free. Do you really think Saddam was gonna float over here on a camel and take us all out if we didn't get him first? Thanks to the Iraq war, the region is now destabilized, and we have ISIS - great job GWB! Fighting multiple wars on multiple fronts has stretched our military thin, and budget cuts due to the sequestration plays a role as well. If those tea party types weren't so big on shutting down the gov't, that would help. Also, not having military bases all over the place would allow us to focus more on the homeland. And of course Russia wants to go to war with us, just look how close they put their country to all of our military bases!!
Funny, but we have been out of Iraq for 4 years now. How long are people going to blame the actions of past presidents, for the failures of the current president? Of course, it was the past President that made the following statement, which means nothing to many I know.
Sorry about that. That really stinks. That used to be the normal way of doing things in the Reserves; go on 21 day orders, and you wouldn't get paid until the end because that's how the Reserve pay system worked. But they spent a lot of time and money integrating the two pay systems so if you were a Reservist going on active duty, you would get paid twice a month just like active duty. So now they are dissembling that to delay paying as long as possible. I guess things are a lot worse than I thought.
A lot of the reason they made the changes was because of exactly what happened to me. Most of us in the Reserves get no pay from civilian jobs while on orders. So imagine being gone for 3-4 weeks and your family getting no income coming in. And then multiply it by adding in the lag from them actually getting it to you. For me, it is now almost 2 months since I got paid. Absolutely insane. My next paycheck thankfully is next week (from my civilian job), but I am now more then likely to refuse any future "optional" orders I get unless they are for 30 days or more. I simply can't afford it.
It goes beyond Obama's sequestration and it is Obama's sequestration. But when you have an entire Marine Corps FA-18 squadron called out of the air during the middle of a week long combat training mission and are told to return to their home base because they have to attend politically correct mandatory sensitivity classes, that lowers combat readiness. Even back in 2010 there were days that aircraft couldn't fly just not because the lack of spare parts but even JP fuel. Congress appropriated the money, where did it go ? I talk to Marine aviators at MCAS Miramar all of the time, starting in 2010 they have only been flying two or three out of every five scheduled training missions. But they have been able to attend every social engineering and sensitivity classes that the current administration can come up with. U.S. Marines weren't ordered to remove the bolts from their rifles while marching in Obama's second inauguration parade in 2013 because the lack of money. Or was all small arms ammunition ordered to be removed from the Marine Barracks in Washington D.C. because of the lack of money and the Marines weren't able to respond to the shooting at the Washington D.C. Navy Yard. This has more to do that Obama doesn't trust the military, especially Marines. There seemed to have been enough money for the military to celebrate gay pride and diversity week. It was orders directly from Valerie Jarrett's desk from the White House that every military base will celebrate gays including drag queens on Air Force bases. There seemed to have been enough money for that bull (*)(*)(*)(*) while they close commissaries, swimming pools and movie theaters on military bases all across the country.
I do concur with you that our military should be adequatly funded, I just think we need to handle war on a case by case basis as well, as to whether or not it is justified. I'd like to point out something that I think you and I can agree on, the anti-war clowns. To me, saying you are "anti-war" means war is never justified, and I totally disagree. Like I said, I think it should be on a case by case basis. May I ask if you served in the Corps? I got the impression from your post you may have, and if so, thanks for your service. I myself was in the Air Force a number of years ago, and enjoyed my time, for the most part. I don't have a boner for war, but I also can't stand the far left, who view the military that protects them as the enemy. While I'm not opposed to these "sensitivity classes", telling soldiers that some of their fellow soldiers are gay, and to simply treat them with respect, I will agree they shouldn't be scheduled at a higher priority than combat readiness. I feel like if you are in the military and don't like gays, that's fine, just don't associate with them any more than you have to. Just don't throw them a blanket party, you know?
To present the budget contril act as a democratic creature Is either ignorant or duplicitous In fact it was the only workAble compromise to resolve the governmrnt shutdown initated by republicans Boehner said this August 02, 2011 - 12:27 PM EDT Boehner: I got 98 percent of what I wanted in debt deal And more republicsn than democratic house members voted for the deal Everyone hated this But less than the alternatives And people thought it was so bAd that vompromise Would be inevitable It wasnt
These sensitivity classes started before Obama but during the Clinton administration around the Tailhook witch hunt era. First it was no looking at cleavage. Then no ethnic jokes. Polish, black, Mexican jokes are off limits except jokes about white Nordic men, that's still allowed to be told. But it went out of control during the Obama administration. It got so bad you couldn't even tell a heterosexual sex joke that the only jokes you were allowed to tell were gay jokes. But soon the word came down no more gay jokes after repealing DADT. What's left except Obama jokes and soon a Marine found himself standing before the man for telling an Obama joke. If you are seen laughing today, an investigation is conducted, what was he laughing about ?
Wait a minute, what? Did the Budget Control Act of 2011 not have only a single sponsor, and that was Democratic Senator Tom Harkin, from Iowa? Did it not pass in the House with 45 Democrats saying yes, and only 6 saying no? Were there not a much higher percentage of Republicans in the House voting no? (28 Republicans said yes, 19 said no). So how anybody can try and state that this is not a "Democratic Creature" is either lying, or delusional. But please, prove me wrong. Please let us know who created this bill, and the voting record of the bill as it went though Congress. Please, present us with some facts will you? Because that is what I have presented. You have presented nothing but coprolite.
Yeah, this PC crap is getting out of hand. I support equal rights for everyone, but not the right to not be offended. People really do need to grow thicker skin. If they can't handle someone saying something mean about them, how do they summon the courage to walk out the front door every day?
White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester Bob Woodward: Obama 'mistaken' on sequester[ QUOTE] “What the president said is not correct,” Woodward told POLITICO Tuesday. “He’s mistaken. And it’s refuted by the people who work for him.” Woodward, a Washington Post journalist who was a key reporter on the initial coverage of the Watergate scandal, said he stands behind his reporting in the book, which drew upon sources involved in last year’s deficit talks and detailed notes taken in the meetings. (Also on POLITICO: Woodward's book: 5 telling moments) Woodward reports in his book that White House Office of Management Director Jack Lew and Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors took the proposal for sequestration to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and then it was presented to congressional Republicans. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82772.html#ixzz3WU6uqhwY[/QUOTE] This says it all.
PC is something I myself find very offensive. It is the next door neighbor to thought police, and is doublethink. I really could not care less if somebody is offended, that is their problem. I never (well, almost never) intend to offend people. But if somebody does get offended, 95% of the time they are simply taking things out of context, or being a whiney cry-baby. And ultimately, they are the ones that are upset, so that really is their issue, not mine. Personally, I do not support equal rights, since that is objective. But I do support equal treatment, and do not think anybody should be discriminated against. However, that does not mean in my opinion that everybody then has the right to stick their own personal business into my face just because they feel like it. Somebody is gay, big whoop-de-do. I prefer the term "Jovial" myself, but that is their business. I no more want to know the details of another's sex life then I want them to know details of mine. So somebody shags boys, girls, sheep, multiples, or finely made Italian footware (or multiple combinations of the previous list). I really could not care less, that to me is TMI and I frankly do not want to freaking know. Come up and try telling me you are gay (or bisexual, or omnisexual, or metrosexual), and I will likely tell you to get outta my face, that was none of my business. And yes, I treat heterosexuals the exact same way. More then once I had some kid try to brag to me on a smoke break about the girl he hooked up with the weekend before, and I told them I did not care, and did not want to know, and it was TMI and none of my business. Yet somehow people think they have the right to be offended just because I do not want to know such things. - - - Updated - - - Some people really do not care about facts, they want to only believe their fantasies. And no matter how many facts you present to them how many times, they will still believe their fantasy over the truth. Is a sad commentary on how some people really think.
This guy is unbelievably ignorant Anyone who is interested can do a google search Go to the wiki Article on this And draw your own conclusion . Dont take my word ir his for it In any case, this guy is apparently unclear on the concept of the houee of reoresentatives and the senate Once again i encourage indepentent research in case any one is interested. Perhaos this guy might do si himself. For what it is worth. The senate haz 100 members and thechouse has 435. You do the math and figure out whether his house vote totals make sense
Open main menu Last edited 2 months ago by Yobot Budget Control Act of 2011 EditWatch this page Budget Control Act of 2011 Great Seal of the United States Long title An Act to provide for budget control. Enacted by the 112th United States Congress Effective August 2, 2011 Citations Public Law Pub.L. 112–25 Statutes at Large 125 Stat. 239 Codification Acts amended Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 Legislative history Introduced in the Senate as "An original bill to make a technical amendment to the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002" (S. 365) by Tom Harkin (D-IA) on February 16, 2011 Committee consideration by Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Passed the Senate on February 17, 2011 (Unanimous consent) Passed the House as the "Budget Control Act of 2011" on August 1, 2011 (269–161) with amendment Senate agreed to House amendment on August 2, 2011 (74–26) Signed into law by President Barack Obama on August 2, 2011 v t e The Budget Control Act of 2011 (Pub.L. 112–25, S. 365, 125 Stat. 240, enacted August 2, 2011) is a federal statute in the United States that was signed into law by President Barack Obama on August 2, 2011. The Act brought conclusion to the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011, which had threatened to lead the United States into sovereign default on or around August 3, 2011. The law involves the introduction of several complex mechanisms, such as creation of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (sometimes called the "super committee"),[1] options for a balanced budget amendment and automatic budget sequestration. Provisions Legislative historyEdit Vice President Biden shook hands and congratulated President Obama immediately after a call between the president and Speaker Boehner in which they reached a deal for the Budget Control Act, July 31, 2011. House vote by congressional district. Democratic yea Democratic nay Republican yea Republican nay Absent or no representative seated The bill was the final chance in a series of proposals to resolve the 2011 United States debt-ceiling crisis, which featured bitter divisions between the parties and also pronounced splits within them. Earlier ideas included the Obama-Boehner $4 trillion "Grand Bargain",[13] the House Republican Cut, Cap and Balance Act, and the McConnell-Reid "Plan B" fallback. All eventually failed to gain enough general political or specific Congressional support to move into law, as the midnight August 2, 2011, deadline for an unprecedented U.S. sovereign default drew nearer and nearer.[14] The solution came from White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, who, on July 12, 2011, proposed a compulsory trigger that would go into effect if another agreement was not made on tax increases and/or budget cuts equal to or greater than the debt ceiling increase by a future date. Ultimately, the intent of the sequester was to secure the commitment of both sides to future negotiation by means of an enforcement mechanism that would be unpalatable to Republicans and Democrats alike. President Obama agreed to the plan. House Speaker John Boehner expressed reservations, but also agreed.[15] On July 26, 2011, White House Budget Director Jack Lew and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to discuss the plan. Reid, like Boehner several days before, was initially opposed to the idea, but was eventually convinced to go along with it, with the understanding that the sequester was intended as an enforcement tool rather than a true budget proposal.[16] On the evening of July 31, 2011, Obama announced that the leaders of both parties in both chambers had reached an agreement that would reduce the deficit and avoid default.[6] The same day, Speaker of the House John Boehner's office outlined the agreement for House Republicans.[17] One key element in the deal being reached and the logjam being broken earlier that afternoon was U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's ability to negotiate with his 25-year Senate colleague, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.[18][19][20] Biden had spent the most time bargaining with Congress on the debt question of anyone in the administration, and McConnell had viewed him as the one most trustworthy.[18][19] "Passed with amendment by recorded vote"[21] Vote by party Yea Nay NV Total Democrats 95 95 3 193 Republicans 174 66 0 240 Total 269 161 3 433 House voteEdit The House passed the Budget Control Act[1] on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269–161. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it, while 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it.[14] "Agreed in the House amendment to the bill by Yea-Nay Vote"[22] Vote by party Yea Nay NV Total Democrats 45 6 0 51 Republicans 28 19 0 47 Independents 1 1 0 2 Total 74 26 0 100 House Speaker Boehner then announced that he got "98% of what I wanted" in the deal. Senate voteEdit Senate vote by state. Both yes One yes, one didn't vote One yes, one no One no, one didn't vote Both no The Senate passed the Act on August 2, 2011 by a vote of 74–26. 6 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted against it.[23] Presidential signatureEdit President Obama signed the bill shortly after it was passed by the Senate.[14] In doing so, the president said, "Is this the deal I would have preferred? No. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year."[13] Obama publicly announced the debt ceiling deal on the evening of July 31, 2011; Congress began voting on it the next day. Contingent votes Projected and known impacts Later developments See also Notes References External links Wikipedia ® MobileDesktop Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Terms of UsePrivacy
You left out that on November 22, 2011 that Obama announced that he would "Veto Any Attempt to Roll Back Automatic Cuts." Those cuts being his sequestration that originated in his White House. You know that word "Veto" that Obama always threatens Congress with every time he can't get what he wants. If Obama wanted to be a legislature and legislate he should have stayed in the Senate.
So this bill was not created by Tom Harkin, a Democrat? More Democratic Senators did not vote for this bill then opposed it? And A higher percentage of Republican Senators did not oppose it then Democrats? The President did not sign it, as opposed to vetoing it? What part of reality are you missing here exactly? Funny how all you do is dispute, but you really do not reference anything, just blabber at how you are right and everybody else is wrong. And for a reference, you simply vomit up almost nonsensical Wikipedia page? - - - Updated - - - It does not matter, this guy is a clown. And I am shortly going to treat him like all other clowns who say absolutely nothing of value.
Gosh. A non Sensical wiki page you say Apparently unable to comprehend The situation was very clear Government shut down Incited by republicans Politicians looking for a way out And while it is convenient to skew the discussion by only looking at the senate The fact is that republicans controlled the house And supported this bill Or it would not have passed So it was pretty much of a bipartisan kludge. Ugly as it was And as wiki said And I remember The idea was it was temporary until a more sensible deal could be negotiated
And the Democrats controlled the Senate, and the Executive branch. And in the House, the Democrat vote for this bill was evenly deadlocked. 95 voted for it, 95 voted against it. So half of the Democrats in the House supported it also. Once again, Who wrote the bill? How pushed it through the Senate? Who signed it into law? None of those 3 were Republicans, no matter what it is you are trying to claim. And the fail keeps rolling along. And it was not the wiki that was nonsensical, but your horrid presentation of it.
