Palin, who made this comment, "Soldier pay decreases in the midst of overspending elsewhere and government union pay raises? Seriously? What are our priorities?" on her FaceBook Page, actually failed to read the article she was making reference too. This lady is so, so ignorant, and so are her followers. Those who pointed out this discrepancy had their comments deleted, and were then banned from commenting on Palin's FB page. So, all that is left there are fools who haven't read the article, but just follow blindly like the Paliban that they are. Every word is Gospel to them, regardless if it's a lie, or more misinformation. And the 3000+ comments are based on this ignorance. And, FYI- I followed Palin on FB because as the old saying goes, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."Here are a few examples:
Conrad O'Connell What else can you expect from obama who is hell bent on turning this country into the United Socialist States of AmericaNow, no where in their article did they say they were actually getting a reduction, but they did reference the Washington Post article,
But Newsmax.com did say, "The Pentagon wants a pay raise of 1.4 percent for service members next year, an increase based on the Employment Cost Index, which the Labor Department uses to measure private-sector salary increases. Congress, as it has for the past several years, has indicated it favors a slightly bigger bump, of 1.9 percent."
So, the way I read that is that the military will get a raise, unless Congress decides otherwise to give them a larger raise, against the recommendations of the DoD, and Gates., based on the ECI. I see no pay reduction here, but then again I don't have the mental acuity of a Palin, or a Newsmax.com reporter. They just do this to rile up their base of blithering idiots, and get them into some frothing rage-like frenzy.
The Washington Post said, "Health care alone is projected to cost the military $51 billion next year, nearly one-tenth of the Pentagon's budget, excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2002, wages have risen 42 percent, compared with about 32 percent for the private sector. Housing and subsistence allowances, which troops receive tax-free, have gone up even more.
But Congress -- including members opposed to the wars -- has made clear that it considers military pay and benefits sacrosanct, especially when service members and their families are struggling to cope with repeated deployments to faraway conflicts." and,
The Pentagon wants a pay raise of 1.4 percent for service members next year, an increase based on the Employment Cost Index, which the Labor Department uses to measure private-sector salary increases. Congress, as it has for the past several years, has indicated it favors a slightly bigger bump, of 1.9 percent.
Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the extra half of a percent may not sound like much, but it would accrue annually and cost about $3.5 billion over the next decade. "If you continue doing it, it becomes a huge burden on the defense budget in the long term," he said.
In February, the Pentagon abruptly shut down a new tuition-assistance program for military spouses after it was overwhelmed with applicants. Defense officials had set aside $61 million for the program, which reimburses tuition costs of up to $6,000 per person, but discovered they might need as much as $2 billion to satisfy unexpected demand.
Congress chastised the Pentagon for mismanaging the program, which has since resumed, though defense officials aren't sure how they will pay for it."
Newsmax.com also interpreted the Washington Post articles by saying, "The Obama administration is “pleading” with Congress to give military personnel a much smaller increase in pay than lawmakers have proposed." But, a 1.4% increase is not that much smaller then a 1.9% increase, just my opinion. But 19 paragraphs later they say, "Congress, as it has for the past several years, has indicated it favors a slightly bigger bump, of 1.9 percent." So, on one hand it says slightly bigger, and on the other they say, much smaller. So which one is it? I report, you decide. I'm being fair and balanced. Besides, Newsmax.com just copied word for word portions of the Washington Post article, but just gave the link to the story in the second paragraph, referencing their story. They didn't give credit to WashPo for the parts they copied word for word, but copyrighted it as their own. Go figure.
Palin is just plain dumb, and a liar, but her cult, who do not bother to read the articles, make comments that are absurd at best, and totally ignorant and racist at worse. Are these people our country's future? I sure as hell hope not, because having a theocracy/idiocracy is not what our Founding Fathers wanted, or wished for for our country.
The simple act of researching, and reading the article, either one, albeit Newsmax.com's headline is a major spin on reality, (What else is new?) will let one see that what non-reader Palin stated was wrong. One begins to wonder, when Katie Couric asked Palin what newspapers she read, and she really couldn't answer, except for the idiotic, "I read everything" comment, was it a precursor of what was to come? Is she happy as a pig in shit leading a happy band of ignorant, non-reading, and bias, prejudice, and racist Palinistas? You betcha!