$364,000,000 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-14-2006, 11:05 AM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:50 AM
$364,000,000

that's been the pricetag for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[q]Report: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Cost $363M
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Mon Feb 13, 5:26 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Discharging troops under the Pentagon's policy on gays cost $363.8 million over 10 years, almost double what the government concluded a year ago, a private report says.

The report, to be released Tuesday by a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission, questioned the methodology the Government Accountability Office used when it estimated that the financial impact of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was at least $190.5 million.

"It builds on the previous findings and paints a more complete picture of the costs," said Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., who has proposed legislation that would repeal the policy.

Congress approved the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in 1993 during the Clinton administration. It allows gays and lesbians to serve in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps as long as they abstain from homosexual activity and do not disclose their sexual orientation.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which has represented service members who left the military under the policy, estimates the Pentagon has discharged more than 10,000 service members for homosexuality since "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" went into effect in 1994. The number of discharges has gone down in recent years.

In February 2005, the GAO said the financial impact could not be completely estimated because the government does not collect financial information specific to each individual's case.

Cautioning that the figures may be too low, the GAO said the federal government spent at least $95.4 million to recruit and $95.1 million to train replacements from 1994 through 2003 for the 9,488 troops discharged during that period because of the policy.

The university study said the GAO erred by emphasizing the expense of replacing those who were discharged because of the policy without taking into account the value the military lost from the departures.

So, the commission focused on the estimated value the military lost from each person discharged. The report detailed costs of $79.3 million for recruiting enlisted service members, $252.4 million for training them, $17.8 million for training officers and $14.3 million for "separation travel" once a service member is discharged.

Commission members include former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Clinton administration, and Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary during the Reagan administration, as well as professors from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060213/.../military_gays

[/q]


i wonder if some of that money could have been used to buy, say, body armor in Iraq?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-14-2006, 11:52 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 10:50 AM
I read that earlier, very sad waste of so much money in my humble opinion. Could be used toward what Bono was talking about at that prayer breakfast-just one example. Or for so many other worthwhile causes- or like you said, body armor.

I'm quite sure that some of the best men and women we have in our military are gay. What is the issue? I don't get it.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-14-2006, 12:35 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 11:50 AM
Flat out discrimination. Even having heterosexual sex may be "banned" on a military base, along with alcohol, etc.----but you cannot honestly tell me that it's strictly enforced----especially by discharge.

Besides the money, think of all the personnel that have been lost at this time when we're so obviously stretched thin & Reserves are even serving 3 or more tours.
__________________
Utoo is offline  
Old 02-14-2006, 12:45 PM   #4
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:50 AM
and all the translators, fluent in Arabic.

it makes us *less* safe.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-14-2006, 12:58 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:50 PM
What a terrible waste of the taxpayers' money.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-14-2006, 12:58 PM   #6
The Fly
 
Phoenix675's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Leek
Posts: 38
Local Time: 03:50 PM
I don't get it!

Why spend all that money on getting rid of people just because of thier sexuality when arguably the could be equally or better skilled than their straight collegues.

Or have I missed something?
__________________
Phoenix675 is offline  
Old 02-14-2006, 02:46 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
the rockin edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: tomorrow's just an excuse away
Posts: 26,816
Local Time: 09:50 AM
__________________
the rockin edge is offline  
Old 02-14-2006, 11:42 PM   #8
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 08:50 AM
So, how exactly is it the military's or the administrations fault that this money was spent on the policy of don't ask, don't tell? Remember this was Clinton's great answer to the whole Gays in the military issue. Secondly, if you join the military you know the policy. If you can't accept the policy, DON'T JOIN. Period. I mean, I'm trying to understand this. A homosexual joins the military. They are made aware of the policy of don't ask, don't tell before they enlist. Then when they get in they decide they don't want to follow the policy? It sounds like a standard breach of contract to me. I think anyone who "decides" they are gay after they enlist or are commisioned should be required to pay the military back for the training they received. Many people who do this probably aren't gay anyway. It is simply a quick way out of the military, and very hard to prove. Most gay people in the military are hard working individuals (yes, I know some) and actually tend to be over acheivers. They also go to great lengths to hide their private lives from others.
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 02-14-2006, 11:47 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 10:50 AM
seriously though, when you look at the state of our national interests both home and abroad, keeping the gays out of the miliary is far more important than educating our youth. i'm all for this budgetary allotment to fight the homosexual agenda.

it's only a matter of time before someone brings up tax cuts for the rich.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 01:19 AM   #10
Blue Crack Overdose
Get me off the internetz!
 
Carek1230's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: wishing I was somewhere else....
Posts: 114,480
Local Time: 07:50 AM
Makes my B/P rise just reading or thinking about it. Sad, sad waste of money being spent in the wrong arenas.
__________________
Carek1230 is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 09:52 AM   #11
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
So, how exactly is it the military's or the administrations fault that this money was spent on the policy of don't ask, don't tell? Remember this was Clinton's great answer to the whole Gays in the military issue. Secondly, if you join the military you know the policy. If you can't accept the policy, DON'T JOIN. Period. I mean, I'm trying to understand this. A homosexual joins the military. They are made aware of the policy of don't ask, don't tell before they enlist. Then when they get in they decide they don't want to follow the policy? It sounds like a standard breach of contract to me. I think anyone who "decides" they are gay after they enlist or are commisioned should be required to pay the military back for the training they received. Many people who do this probably aren't gay anyway. It is simply a quick way out of the military, and very hard to prove. Most gay people in the military are hard working individuals (yes, I know some) and actually tend to be over acheivers. They also go to great lengths to hide their private lives from others.

the costs are what are incurred when the U.S. military discharges and replaces gay service members. so let's dump the flawed policy to begin with. why would you want to turn away people fluent in Arabic? or the over-achievers you mention?

i also don't think you have any clue about what might constitute a breach of "don't ask, don't tell" -- let's say two men are living together and have a domestic dispute, one partner beats up the other, and if the one who was beaten wants to press charges, guess what? he's out of the military for violating "don't ask, don't tell." people are found guilty of violates of the policy due to factors beyond their control.

i also don't see why anyone should have to go to "great lengths" to hide their private lives from anyone, but that's another story.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-15-2006, 10:43 AM   #12
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



i also don't think you have any clue about what might constitute a breach of "don't ask, don't tell" -- let's say two men are living together and have a domestic dispute, one partner beats up the other, and if the one who was beaten wants to press charges, guess what? he's out of the military for violating "don't ask, don't tell." people are found guilty of violates of the policy due to factors beyond their control.

i

Irvine,You side stepped my point entirely. The gay man knew what the policy was. Your example is only one possible scenario, and probably a rare one at that. You've used this same example before. Are you trying to tell me there is a very high percentage of domestic violence among homosexual couples? If the person didn't want to be kicked out of the military, why would he have to say his gay lover beat him up and not his roommate? I realize YOU don't agree with the policy, but the gay service member AGREED to the policy when they joined. Most people who are kicked out because of this do so under there own admission. The military DOES NOT actively persue rumors about individuals any longer. So in other words, if private Snuffy says, "Sargeant, private Smith's a fag" not only will they not persue it, but private snuffy may very well be admonished for the accusation. The military simply no longer has the resources to persue this stuff like they did in the eighties and early nineties.
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 10:56 AM   #13
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby



Irvine,You side stepped my point entirely. The gay man knew what the policy was. Your example is only one possible scenario, and probably a rare one at that. You've used this same example before. Are you trying to tell me there is a very high percentage of domestic violence among homosexual couples? If the person didn't want to be kicked out of the military, why would he have to say his gay lover beat him up and not his roommate? I realize YOU don't agree with the policy, but the gay service member AGREED to the policy when they joined. Most people who are kicked out because of this do so under there own admission. The military DOES NOT actively persue rumors about individuals any longer. So in other words, if private Snuffy says, "Sargeant, private Smith's a fag" not only will they not persue it, but private snuffy may very well be admonished for the accusation. The military simply no longer has the resources to persue this stuff like they did in the eighties and early nineties.


so, essentially, you're blaming gay people for the cost of this policy to the military?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-15-2006, 11:14 AM   #14
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Actually, I'm probably blaming people who want out of the military more than I'm blaming gay people. Most gay people in the military want to be there and they are willing to hide there private life. I realize you fell they shouldn't have too, but that's another issue. Therefore, I feel the majority of people getting kicked out because they're gay, probably aren't gay at all. They probably just hate the military and want out as quickly as possible.
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 11:27 AM   #15
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
Actually, I'm probably blaming people who want out of the military more than I'm blaming gay people. Most gay people in the military want to be there and they are willing to hide there private life. I realize you fell they shouldn't have too, but that's another issue. Therefore, I feel the majority of people getting kicked out because they're gay, probably aren't gay at all. They probably just hate the military and want out as quickly as possible.


there might be some truth to that, rumor has it that's how Chevy Chase (the actor) got out of Vietnam -- he said he was gay.

still, since 2002, over 20 fluent Arabic speakers and 6 Farsi speakers have been discharged because they were gay.

it seems that this is a bad policy on many levels, not least because it's making us less safe. why waste money enforcing a bad policy?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com