USMC size reduction

[Quinbo]

Lynn if I argued that beavers ate tree bark you would counter with beavers should contract the tree cutting to hampsters. Ohh no the beavers are destroying our forests .. ohh my. Course you'll just clip the hampsters part out and say hamsters would do a great job of cutting down trees for the beavers.

[Lynn2]

Lynn if I argued that beavers ate tree bark you would counter with beavers should contract the tree cutting to hampsters. Ohh no the beavers are destroying our forests .. ohh my. Course you'll just clip the hampsters part out and say hamsters would do a great job of cutting down trees for the beavers.

\
I disagree with you not because I think you are stupid. But because your ideas are stupid for our country.

A nonsense statement above that could have been written by a moron. And you wonder why I do not address every point you make?

And not one comment from you about the "war economy" you think so important.

Not one comment about that 3/4 and soon to be a trillion dollars we have spent in Iraq and how that is good for the US.

Not one comment about how well you think those US lives lost have been well spent.

What you counter with is hampsters and beavers.

[USNAviator]

You are an E1 since 2006?

Jetdawgg

I think that's the standard profile. He's hasn't been respectful enough to bother to fill in his own profile. At least that's my take on the situation.

[Quinbo]

Well beavers build better dams than hamsters or so I'm told.

[NoRemorse]

I liked this thread better when we were talking about SOS

[gungygal48]

http://comptroller.defense.gov/rates/fy2009/2009_k.pdf

The above website provides a schedule of military composite standard pay and shows how to compute the annual, hourly or daily value of DOD service members based on rank.

If you are interested in determining the "value" or "cost" comparison of a military mbr with a contractor counterpart the schedule will help.

FY10 rates were not available or I haven't been able to find them - FY09 should give you a good estimate.

[jetdawgg]

Jetdawgg

I think that's the standard profile. He's hasn't been respectful enough to bother to fill in his own profile. At least that's my take on the situation.

Makes me wonder who he is.....

[Lynn2]

http://comptroller.defense.gov/rates/fy2009/2009_k.pdf

The above website provides a schedule of military composite standard pay and shows how to compute the annual, hourly or daily value of DOD service members based on rank.

If you are interested in determining the "value" or "cost" comparison of a military mbr with a contractor counterpart the schedule will help.

FY10 rates were not available or I haven't been able to find them - FY09 should give you a good estimate.

Interesting. Thanks GG48.

But from this:

"The annual DoD composite rate includes the following military personnel appropriation costs: average basic pay plus retired pay
accrual, MERHC accrual, basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, incentive and special pay, permanent change of
station expenses, and miscellaneous pay. Includes a per capita normal cost of $5,560 for MERHC accrual -- see Tab K-1."

It does not appear that any training related costs are included? Bootcamp or MOS schools or any other training that AD people are prone to do.

It looks like they are costing out only fully trained and ready to go troops?

[Danny C Smith]

I liked this thread better when we were talking about SOS

Me too.
All of the "brainy" stuff I really don't understand.
I do get the point though. In my own simple way.

[Quinbo]

There is no realistic way to quantify a reduction in forces verses replacing them with contractors. Take away the Marines and get a bunch of guys that read soldier of fortune. Regardless of whether it is stacking boxes in a warehouse or frying eggs. Somebody has to do it.

If you erase a Marines job and replace it with a civilian counter part then the money spent is probably equal.

My opinion ... if you draw down the MC numbers and then replace them with civilian contracts you are not saving a dime in the long run.

If the powers that be decide we don't need X numbers of umpty fratz mos and cut their numbers then so be it. If they are replaced by civilian contractors that was a waste of red tape.

[USNAviator]

Makes me wonder who he is.....

Me too Jetdawgg. Odd, starts a thread then vanishes without comment. In the words of General Custer when confronted with a superior force at Little Big Horn, "WTF?"

[FattyTheFerret]

So by now I'm sure most people have heared about the almost inevitable coming size reduction of the Marine Corps. For those of you who haven't, here's a link to a news article about the story.

I suppose it is a good thing to be trimming the fat and flushing the turds. But I can't help feeling a little unsure about all this. How is the down sizing accomplished? Will people be allowed to retire early, or will recruiting efforts be cut back some? Re-enlistments tougher?

Probably a bit of all that.

Hypothetically, if you didn't make the cut (which I'm sure we will) where would you go? Army? Navy? Law Enforcement? What happens to people with families who are unable to re-enlist?

Think about it; if a marine with a family in incapable of getting a job elsewhere and his only recourse is to stay in the military, is he really a quality individual that we need to around?

I imagine I'd try and switch services if I had to, but the thought of doing it doesn't sound too pleasing at all.

Again I understand the reasons for it, I just don't know what going through this reduction might feel like.

It's gonna be tough but we're part of the defense budget and the belt needs to get tighter. Size reduction, however, is only a small part of it. A lot of the culture of waste within units, a lot of the failed weapons systems that are pushed through defense subcommittees simply because it gives the factory workers in a particular district a steady paycheck, the idea that despite having more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined we need yet another one...a lot of stuff should be taken care of before focusing on troop reduction.

Still, money spent on personnel is a significant chunk of the two thirds of a trillion dollar defense budget. It's a start.

[FattyTheFerret]

personely, I think if thay want to reduce something, thay should look at Government first leave the Marine Corps alone it is fine just the way it is thay already have a back log of people so it's not like there getting the low lifes. the Military should be the last thing to get cut or down sized.

Newsflash: The Marine Corps is the Government.

[FattyTheFerret]

Our gun club has been in action, as we all know, longer
than this Nation has been "officially" a Nation.

So has the army and navy. In fact, both are older than we are.

[revleo]

do not forget our history bro we were first established by the continental congress and we were named as a Corps of marines to serve on ships of the line we were actually mentioned before both the army and the navy so technically we are the oldest service which is why i have always had a problem with being a department of the navy as is written but semantics right and as for all the rest of this enlightening discussion i cannot add to to the fine comments that have already been made we are a self sustaining unit that does our own clean up and all the rest do any of you want to wait for some zoomie to decide when to drop close air support when you are pinned down or do you want a fellow marine who will die trying to get you support easy enough to answer for me as for cooks all of us who have spent time in the suck have spent some hours working a chow line rotate other MOS's through chow duty at a greater rate and have a select few in the chow MOS to supervise them there contract problem solved and less guy sitting on their asses shooting the **** in the barracks