military "danger pay" cuts?

[stripernut1]

Today i was in a taxi in cincinatti and caught the tail end of a news topic, and forgive me if i "mis-heard" , said something to the effect that the pentagon and certain senators were contemplating cutting "danger pay" allowances to military personnel. I cant find anything else on this matter? Im not supporting or criticizing anything until i learn more.....but a mere passing whiff of this smells like .....,. Also im sure i missed the first part of the story....the part where all politicians were going to lead by example and enact voluntary pay cuts.....starting at the ummmm......top. my son is scheduled to go into the marines late summer.....last time i checked **** near everything the marines do is "dangerous". Somebody please enlightene as to what this means ??

[waterdog101]

Today i was in a taxi in cincinatti and caught the tail end of a news topic, and forgive me if i "mis-heard" , said something to the effect that the pentagon and certain senators were contemplating cutting "danger pay" allowances to military personnel. I cant find anything else on this matter? Im not supporting or criticizing anything until i learn more.....but a mere passing whiff of this smells like .....,. Also im sure i missed the first part of the story....the part where all politicians were going to lead by example and enact voluntary pay cuts.....starting at the ummmm......top. my son is scheduled to go into the marines late summer.....last time i checked **** near everything the marines do is "dangerous". Somebody please enlightene as to what this means ??

hope this helps, hPentagon to revise danger pay country roster | WOAI: San Antonio Newsope

[HURRICANEBOB]

Some areas of the world have cooled down because when we entered, it was a full combat zone, and after our efforts, it's cooled off. It's a normal defense department cyclic review of all areas in the world tropps serve, assessing the threat, which leads to how much defense dollars get spent in an area for troops and equipment. Areas where the threat has been reduced, gets less, because areas where the threat is high must have the money to get the job done.

This type prioritization occurs when defense dollars shrink. But bear in mind that happens when the threat has to some degree diminished.

Still an unsafe world, and folks with dog tags and combats will still go into to harms way, intent is to be sure those who face the biggest threat get the equipment and pay equal to the threat.

Think of it as apportionment, of the available sum total of an appropriation. In terms us normal guys think in, "If I make $500 this week, how much goes to paying the bills I can't ignore, and how much can I spend on things I'd like to have if the money is available. "