posted on April 3, 2003 04:24:05 PM new
No Helen, that does not include all the allowances, there is no medical or dental to pay, commissary priviledges allow them access to lower grocery shopping, many military families have made it...
It is true that if the wife chooses not to work, and they cannot get onbase housing it will be tough...
posted on April 3, 2003 04:30:17 PM new
It's tough without a doubt and it's not generally a choice. Childcare for a working wife is tough for most civilians making much more.
Don't try to tell me it's not poverty, twelvepole.
posted on April 3, 2003 04:30:56 PM new
Neonmania, since the page changed when I made my comment to clarksville, Reamond may miss your questions. I'll repost them here for you.
Neonmania's question to REAMOMD
::I am grateful that this young man served the country, but I also have reservations about the "best and brightest" coming to America from places like Mexico. ::
Why? Certainly you don't worry that they are coming in as "sleeper agents", is there something genetically wrong with them that makes you feel they may not be worthy? If so, do you hink that the Military would offer a "citizenship for service" program? What is it that you feel that you know about Latinos that the military is unaware of?
:: It would be great if this young widow would get her education and go to Mexico and improve the country- even if she is not Latino, her son and in-laws are. ::
If she is not a Mexican citizen why should she leave? If she is a blue eyed, blond haired california girl that fell in love with a Latino man, why should she be expected to take her raise her child in Mexico? If her husband had been a Canadian would you be saying the same thing?
I don't see you making these statements about Dominican or Philipino or any other nationallity of soldiers. Why such distaste towards Latinos that you even wish that the wife of a slain one would basically just take her money and her child and leave?
posted on April 3, 2003 06:26:18 PM new
Well the first question is nonsense and I don't know what it applies to.
I would apply the same to all immigrants. Come here and get an education or even military service and then go back and improve your country.
It is irrelevant what nationality the widow is, she has a connection to Mexico and would have a higher standard of living there.
As I stated, the time for the US being a life raft or "safe" island to the world is over. Bringing the the world to our country is no longer a viable nor sustainable option. We have to fix problems where they are, and not allow immigration to paper over the problems.
I "pick" on Mexico because it offers the most glaring problems. Having the mexican population "escape" into the US is only prolonging the problem.
Mexico needs to get its economic house in order and cut the head off the corruption that is endemic in the culture.
Having an avalanche of illegal immigrants flooding into the US will not solve Mexico's problems, and only adds to the US's problems.
posted on April 3, 2003 07:38:33 PM new
::Well the first question is nonsense and I don't know what it applies to. ::
It has to do with you questioning whether the best and brightest can be latinos.
It is irrelevant what nationality the widow is, she has a connection to Mexico and would have a higher standard of living there. . ::
If the story I had watched had been about a white family from San Diego , would you have suggested his widow move to Mexico to "improve her standard of living"?
::Mexico needs to get its economic house in order and cut the head off the corruption that is endemic in the culture. ::
And iit's people are doing what they can within the limitations of the system to start eliminating the problem and bring in leaders who are pushing for such reforms but there is no instant fix.
posted on April 4, 2003 01:12:00 PM new
Helen, since I am a military vet and you aren't, I believe that I have more creditable opinion than you. Once again it is not poverty.
If all of my expenses are paid over, I have $300 left over for "luxery" items per EACH WEEK times four equals $1,200 a month for luxery items.
posted on April 4, 2003 04:18:32 PM new
Helen, that pay is not based on a "family" of any type... all pay and allowances are based on a single individual.
When a military member decides to get married or enlists that is married, if their spouse doesn't work to help out... yes that would put them in a "poverty" level. But seeing how the military pay is based on a single individual, it is not at poverty levels.
It is the persons choice to get married or not... their spouses aren't issued...
posted on April 4, 2003 04:39:32 PM new
Not even close to poverty if all information is included. No Rent or House payment when living on the base, greatly reduced basic supplies, Many bases provide cost effective childcare for a working mom which raises the $300 tag even more. No medical no dental and a gaglle of other things to numersous to list. being from a military family and background I am very familiar. My wife comes from a miltary family also and has 6 brothers and sisters and they lived far from the poverty level with a stay at home mom. The advantages are great and there to be taking advantage. Of course you will not get rich but the educational bonus and all other variables considered it is near as bad as a "civilian" thinks it is.
posted on April 4, 2003 05:09:14 PM new
TOMYOU: I have to disagree with you. I retired from the Air Force in 1996 after 20 years.
At that time I was "making" $24,000 a year as a MSgt E-7. My wife and I and my daughter (three of us) found it difficult if not impossible to "live comfortably", not in excess, on that amount with only me working. To have any extras (no luxuries mind you), my wife would find a job and we would have to search for affordable childcare off-base. Usually because there are few or no openings on base.
Same goes for housing - no... housing is not "free" - utilities are, but in order to live on base, your BAQ or basic allowance for quarters was relinquished. BAQ is payed to married and single military members when military housing is not available and/or authorization is allowed for single members to live off base. BAQ was NEVER enough to cover renting even the cheapest hole of a residence off base - you had to make the difference up from your pocket... plus pay utilities. The caveat here is that the opportunity to HAVE that chance to live on base goes to the higher ranking members FIRST - why? well... the higher the rank, the higher the BAQ rate the member gets when living off base. So instead of allowing the lower payed married military members to relinquish the small BAQ pay to live on base, some brainiac decided to turn it the other way around, putting more money back into the DOD housing fund while strangling the lower ranking troops.
As for "everything else" on base that is purchased at a lower price... not so. Yes, it's tax exempt but thanks to idiot purchases for the Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) the base exchanges only sold the high dollar name brand items - not just items made in America - that would make sense. No, THE highest... why? to milk the military member out of what little pay they do receive. Base and Post Exchanges quite often stock items like $6,000 Rolex watches... now who the hell in the military can afford those? Yep... Generals... they STOCK them readily available just in case a General comes to the base and wants to buy one. No kidding.
Throughout my career it was ALWAYS cheaper to purchase OFF base instead of ON base. Couldn't afford on base unless you were willing to put yourself in a bind each month. That includes the commissary or grocery store. Better values found off base.
I can only imagine that if you were a military dependent, your father must have been a high ranking officer and not on the enlisted end of the spectrum... so you really don't know what it's like.
I agree, the medical was free... not the greatest... but it was free. The security was exceptional. The education benefits were great too... if you could find the time between your second job and taking care of your kids while your spouse works.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not bitching. I enjoyed every minute of my outstanding career and securing YOUR freedom for you. But if you haven't been there... you can't talk about it with any authority.
Best Regards,
Greg Williams
Retro Bargains
www.retrobargains.com
posted on April 4, 2003 05:25:15 PM new
FOR THOSE INTERESTED:
Here's a link that shows the current 2003 Military Pay Rates, Military Housing Allowance, and Civilian Pay that DOD pays our heros. E-1 is the lowest rank... and it just goes up from there:
posted on April 4, 2003 05:42:40 PM new
Hi Retro, No problem I understand where you are coming from. I was really laying out the long term benifits as much as the short term so there are things to be said for both sides. Lets use my wifes father as an example of what I am talking of long term and the my son as short term. Father in law is now a retired Col. Granted they did not start out as a family of 8 and his pay cale was going up as family memebers. But just as in any job you work your way up the ladder. Using all the military advantages he had his education paid for and operated his own very successful business after active duty while still working as a reservist. All these advantages have helped lead to a VERY comfortable life. Using my son as an example being young as most new recruits are out of pocket cost are very minimal and a good mind can save plenty of money for "rainy days" and saving. It isn't easy in any field you choose but it is far from the povery some insist it is. I think the big picture and long term advantages need to be factored in into any career choice and the military is a very good option for a good successful life and their is no greater personal honor then serving your country during peace or war but many honorable jobs (teaching as an example) are underpaid. I do think the pay scale is low but I mainly disagreed with the poverty statement.
[ edited by tomyou on Apr 4, 2003 05:48 PM ]
posted on April 4, 2003 09:33:09 PM new If Mexico is like the US, being married to a citizen can bring citizenship. Her in-laws are there also. But, there are many fixed income American retirees that live in Mexico just because the dollars go much farther.
Being married to a Mexican citizen does NOT bring defacto citizenship. I have first hand experience with this. My siblings and I are dual citizens.My brother's wife, a US citizen, sought citizenship in Mexico. After thousands of dollars in legal fees and miles of red tape, she gave up.My girls, who were born in Mexico and whose mother is a Mexican citizen, have dual citizenship. My son, whose mother is a US citizen and who was born in the US, is NOT a Mexican citizen. He will have the right to petition when he turns 18, but the costs and red tape will make it unlikely that he will ever do so. By the same token, being married to a US citizen no longer guarantees US citizenship or even a right to be in this country. One of our seasonal workers, an American, went to Mexico to spend time with his family. While there, he married a local girl. He returned to the states, and she joined him some time later.They both got jobs at a hotel near where they were living, she cleaning rooms and he working on grounds maintenance. One day the INS came calling...She got loaded onto a bus with other indocumentados and deported WHILE HER HUSBAND, A BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN, stood by helpless. The INS would not even allow him to accompany her on the bus.
American retirees in Mexico are another matter entirely. Those who own property in Mexico are easily granted what is called an FM-3 card, which is a document of resident alien status. In order to receive it, they must document property ownership and guaranteed income.
There is no doubt that this guy's wife has the option of living in Mexico, just like any other US citizen does. She has the further assistance of her inlaws in getting to know a community perhaps more easily than the average American. To suggest that she do so because her husband was Mexican is troubling to say the least. "Thanks for your husband's life,even if he was Mexican... now why don't you go live somewhere else?..."
posted on April 4, 2003 11:12:43 PM new
retrobargains in your spiel starting with “TOMYOU: I have to disagree with you. I retired from the Air Force in 1996 after 20 years” you went on to say “to milk the military member out of what little pay they do receive”.
How unfortunate for you that just as I accused you of being inhumane
“It is clear that you see no ‘sense of obligation’ to the south of Texas, but other Americans should be concerned that this ‘sense of obligation’ might also diminish as your view expands to the Northern States.”
some top brass have made decisions concerning care of the enlisted men, that were ‘AT BEST’ too distant from or ignorant of the plight of your ass.
Or perhaps they just felt that your ass was a target of opportunity.
Hey there’s no law against it, so stop complaining. “it’s just wrong” perhaps, but it’s perfectly legal, and that is after all ‘lase faire’. (free market).
Rest assured, Bush the Son, is up there fighting for you right now. Just as much as he did when his name was called for ‘Armed Service’.
It must be a sad day for a man, after having courageously devoted his life to defending his right and that of his family, when he is finally hit with the realisation that even his wife and kids are ‘canon fodder’ too.
The powers that be are only interested in their own ASSets, you have made that abundantly clear.
