G!NG3R420 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 President Obama’s latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at. A Marine who lives in Florida has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his PayPal account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at. So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I’m constantly in a combat zone…it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense…come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here… Florida Marine Corp Soldier (We are not posting his name for obvious reasons) According to Military.com, as of February 1, 2012, this new measure went into effect, and soldiers who are to received the additional $225/mo. combat pay ‘must’ must be in immediate risk of harm. The measure is very specific in its criteria for receiving the additonal pay. The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012. A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was: *Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; *On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines; *Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or *On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions. The last bullet point speaks volumes as to the sheer stupidity of this measure. The whole point of going to Afghanistan and Iraq was for combat operations- Afghanistan still is a hostile warzone, and both U.S. and NATO forces continue to suffer losses in and out of combat hot zones. Insurgent attacks have accured throughout areas that have been deemed ‘safe’, and in areas where hostilities were not forseen. http://patdollard.co...for-u-s-troops/ I must say, as a soldier myself, you should be entilted to the pay reguardless if you are shot at in a day or not. The indirect fire that is going off as well as the basic danger of just being on the fob. As well, if you are stationed in what is to be called a "safe zone" you will not receive the combat pay. Even though the safe zones still have a risk of insurgent activity and IED's. They keep taking more and more money away from the people who risk the most for the nation and its the damn desk SOB that are making this decision. How hard is it to sit behind a desk and ruin the lives of everyone else? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milli vanilli Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 um. no. congress approves spending, not the president. and the wording of the new rules is very vague. find me the actual bill that this is supposed to come from, then i'll believe it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoGooD Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'm hoping this is some story "The Onion" came up with and Fox ran with it..again. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostwind Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Even if this is true, I hardly consider this a "liberal agenda" there. I cannot think of any other country in the world where the military plays such an integral part of every day life (for both liberals and conservatives). If this is true, I would assume that cuts to the military stem from the failure of the Super Committee, a bipartisan committee, to agree on the required budget cuts. The fact remains that the US government needs to make major budget cuts, which makes the military a huge target (we are talking going into the 1.4 trillion range for 2012). However, I do agree with you that if you are being shot at, you deserve to be compensated for your danger, with the caveat that the danger that you are being subjected to is greater than you would be at home. I would assume that this would include operations that are in hostile countries such as Iraq or Iran. I feel for you and your situation, but as milli vanilli stated, it might be better to wait and see what happens and the rules are clarified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milli vanilli Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Even if this is true, I hardly consider this a "liberal agenda" there. I cannot think of any other country in the world where the military plays such an integral part of every day life (for both liberals and conservatives). If this is true, I would assume that cuts to the military stem from the failure of the Super Committee, a bipartisan committee, to agree on the required budget cuts. The fact remains that the US government needs to make major budget cuts, which makes the military a huge target (we are talking going into the 1.4 trillion range for 2012). However, I do agree with you that if you are being shot at, you deserve to be compensated for your danger, with the caveat that the danger that you are being subjected to is greater than you would be at home. I would assume that this would include operations that are in hostile countries such as Iraq or Iran. I feel for you and your situation, but as milli vanilli stated, it might be better to wait and see what happens and the rules are clarified. And heres some brain food for you... http://costofwar.com/en/ how big is our defecit now? and how much have we spent on these two wars? I'll back the Afghan project, but Iraq was Bush trying to finish what daddy started. I've got nothing but the utmost respect for our men and women in the military, but I will not support a war that is pointless. Still waitignn for those WMD's to be found... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostwind Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 that is a really, really, sad number to see up there... I cant even fathom a number so large :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G!NG3R420 Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 And heres some brain food for you... http://costofwar.com/en/ how big is our defecit now? and how much have we spent on these two wars? I'll back the Afghan project, but Iraq was Bush trying to finish what daddy started. I've got nothing but the utmost respect for our men and women in the military, but I will not support a war that is pointless. Still waitignn for those WMD's to be found... I agree, The bad part is that I have no choice but to do what I am paid to do. I never agreed with the Iraq war, it was pointless and costed too many American lives. WMD's HA!!! We couldnt find osama when he was in the biggest building in the town where he was found. Bush was a joke, and I hope that this whole combat pay is not true. I have not seen much proof from the military access websites that I can log to but why is this story moving about all throughout the internet. If someone can please prove this article to be wrong it would make my day better. For now there is no solid proof if this is true or false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milli vanilli Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 you want the truth? its not about news anymore. its about entertainment and ratings..and what drives people to read more at that site? emotion and anger. ask my wife, i rip the news constantly. just watch your local news. ever see any heartwarming stories about the lady who makes minimum wage at 2 jobs raising 2 kids and still volunteers? no, but you'll sure see that Katy Perry and Russel Brand broke up. Or that this politician said this so you should be angry... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoGooD Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 you want the truth? its not about news anymore. its about entertainment and ratings..and what drives people to read more at that site? emotion and anger. ask my wife, i rip the news constantly. just watch your local news. ever see any heartwarming stories about the lady who makes minimum wage at 2 jobs raising 2 kids and still volunteers? no, but you'll sure see that Katy Perry and Russel Brand broke up. Or that this politician said this so you should be angry... Katy Perry and Russel Brand broke up? So she's single? NICE! BTW, I thought the whole point of the Iraq and afghan war were to position us closer to Iran when it's time to strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiNoY Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 combat for $225 per soldier or per life? .... fallback men fallback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostwind Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 combat for $225 per soldier or per life? .... fallback men fallback. Pinoy, this is extra pay a soldier get in addition to his or her regular salary for being in a warzone. This amount is paid per month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G!NG3R420 Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 Pinoy, this is extra pay a soldier get in addition to his or her regular salary for being in a warzone. This amount is paid per month. According to this, now it could possibly be $225 per life, since they want soldiers to get shot at before they are paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiNoY Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 According to this, now it could possibly be $225 per life, since they want soldiers to get shot at before they are paid. Needless to say its metaphorically $225 per life on top of their regular salary, coz warzone is 50/50 chance of coming back dead or alive). suddenly, i remember an old news of a guy who sold his kidney for $3000 USD and saved a life.. the enemy is weakend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G!NG3R420 Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 Just an update. This is from an e-mail I recieved from the Army. The following is for unofficial use only... "A new law may affect the pay you receive when you are on duty in an imminent danger pay (IDP) area. About 27 locations world-wide have been designated by the Secretary of Defense as IDP areas. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA 2012), signed on December 31, 2011, requires we begin prorating IDP so that members are paid for only the actual days they perform duty in an IDP area. Before December 31, members received the full $225 a month even if they performed duty only one day in an IDP area. Now service members will receive $7.50 for each day they are on duty in an IDP area up to the maximum monthly rate of $225. Members who are exposed to a hostile fire or hostile mine explosion event are eligible to receive non-prorated Hostile Fire Pay (HFP) in the full monthly amount of $225. Members cannot receive both IDP and HFP in the same month. The law required proration to begin on December 31, 2011; however, because it took time to publish implementing guidance and ready pay systems, we were not ready to begin prorating the pay on that date. DoD began to pay the prorated payments beginning February 1, 2012. If you are eligible to receive IDP, you may see the prorated amount of the pay in your February 15th pay depending on the actual number of days you spend in an IDP area." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milli vanilli Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 much better explination. its a way of trimming some of the budget fat. yeah, there's going to be some people who will make less, i understand that. but i know a lot of people who were getting HDP when they didn't deserve it. my old roomate was fresh back from an iraw tour when we moved in together and he told me all sorts of stuff about how people got paid HDP when they shouldn't 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.