The Daily Show: Supporting Our Troops
- Thread starter jpeyton
- Start date
rofl...according to Leibowitz, 16% decrease in re-enlistment = 16% increase in recruitment? lmfao
uh...there are more serving than there are enlisting...
example: say for the state of FLorida, there are 1,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment. 16 percent of those would not re-enlist. so 160.
say that 100 are recruited. so 16 percent more means 16 new soldiers on top of the 100.
160 = 16?
more fuzzy math thanks to Leibowitz
uh...there are more serving than there are enlisting...
example: say for the state of FLorida, there are 1,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment. 16 percent of those would not re-enlist. so 160.
say that 100 are recruited. so 16 percent more means 16 new soldiers on top of the 100.
160 = 16?
more fuzzy math thanks to Leibowitz
dainthomas
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2004
- 14,589
- 3,421
- 136
So you're comfortable limiting post-military educational opportunities for our troops in order to force them to remain active duty? Maybe we should go one step further and eliminate the GI Bill? That way they'll have no choice at all. And as a side benefit we might boost retention numbers enough that we could stop recruiting felons and high-school dropouts.
I wonder what active duty enlisted personnel make of Bush's reasoning?
Not at all and where did I say that? So you can quit with the hyperbole.
You act as if they arent recieving school benefits right now, they are. Webb plan to expand the program is estimated to show a 16% reduction in re-enlistment. These benefits are designed to attract and retain people for service. Does it makes sense to implement a plan that is expected to reduce the amount of people the military retains from the current program?
McCain's plan also expands these benefits but provides higher benefits the longer you stay in. Which makes more logical sense. You should recieve more benefit the more you put into it.
And of course lets not forget that both plans are on top of the current program. So even if both fail military people wont see a "reduction" in benefits in any normal sense of the word. Only if used in Govt speak.
it sounds like the people for Webbs bill are disagreeing with the idea that there should be greater benefits for greater time served.
exactly the line I'd expect from the party of the laz... er, unionized. a free 100K for serving 1 year that goes right back into the teacher's union?
you know, as long as we're demonizing the other side here
really, both bills provide net increases in benefits, the rhetoric that's being used to describe the opposition is absurd.
exactly the line I'd expect from the party of the laz... er, unionized. a free 100K for serving 1 year that goes right back into the teacher's union?
you know, as long as we're demonizing the other side here
really, both bills provide net increases in benefits, the rhetoric that's being used to describe the opposition is absurd.
First question to Daveymark...
Did you pull those numbers out of your ass or your urethra?
Second question....
Since when has the increase in new recruits ever been tied to the number of actual candidates recruited instead of a comparison to the previous year's total?
Genx87....I think that you are unaware of the wrong circle jerk that is being interrupted. Hint....IT'S YOURS!!!
Edit: to give numbers that are based a little more in reality...
Say that there are 1000 soldiers up for re-enlistment and 16% decline....total retention for that group is 840 (you got this part right...yeah, you)
Now, say that there were 800 new recruits last year and you increased that number by 16%...enlistment is now at 928 for a net GAIN (even though the number of recruits the previous year was lower than the number of those up for re-enlistment).
Now, obviously there will be more that are eligible for re-enlistment than are joining....but the difference isn't as big as McCain, daveymark and Genx87 would have you believe.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Even a large number of GOP members broke ranks with the McChickenhawk on Webb's bill.
McSame and Bush seem to be comfortable clinging to their unpopular minority position, all the way to a defeat in the fall.
McSame and Bush seem to be comfortable clinging to their unpopular minority position, all the way to a defeat in the fall.
Big surprise, election year and the democrat lite party is trying to make friends with the real deal?
That doesnt mean the bill is good for the military.
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,466
- 4,534
- 136
Are you serious?
It's way worse; let's say there are 10,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment.
16% would not re-enlist, so 1600.
Say that 50 are recruited. so 16% means 8 new soldiers on top of the 50.
1600 = 8?
See how much fun math can be when you don't have a clue?
Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
Man the republow-bots around here sure are grasping for straws these days...I guess, I would be to if I had to try and justify some of the horseshit beliefs some of you have...
I find it hard to believe if this was flipped and was about Obama you would be saying what you're saying right now...
Psst: Guys, you might actually want to read up on this before shoving your feet quite so far into your mouths. Daveymark you are exactly right that all 16%s aren't equal. Unfortunately you got it completely wrong on the specifics. According to the CBO's analysis this would result in an increase of about 30,000 new recruits annually while reducing retention by about 7,000. So, the very same people that everyone is referencing seem to think that it will provide the military with so many more recruits over what they will need to cover their losses, that if you read the PDF they talk about reducing enlistment bonuses, etc. to actually deter people.
This probably is because you don't understand how military recruiting and retention works. The majority of people who serve get out of the military after one enlistment. If you re-enlist once however, your prospect of staying in goes way way up.
I'll give you a hint at the argument you actually want to be making instead of playing numbers games (and playing them incorrectly I might add). The problem here is that you're trading more experienced soldiers for new recruits. A guy with 4 years in is way more useful then a booter. Of course the CBO has included an increase in re-enlistment bonuses in it's cost analysis to counteract this, but it's still a way better argument then just using horribly wrong math.
the democrats have no interest in bipartisanship... which is a good thing if you agree with the DNC platform.
Why is a 'good bill' a compromise? The one being proposed by Webb would restore the GI bill to what it was originally intended to be, not the afterthought that it currently is. The numbers given by the CBO show a relatively modest increase in necessary spending in order to keep retention up to where our force needs it to be, and it is largely offset by the savings given by being able to reduce enlistment cash bonuses, etc.
McCain's bill gives the most educational benefits to those least likely to use them. Who gets out of the military after 12 years in to go to college!? The answer: just about nobody. Thanks McCain, you really helped out all of those 30 year old freshmen that are crawling all over our 4 year universities.
McCain's bill gives the most educational benefits to those least likely to use them. Who gets out of the military after 12 years in to go to college!? The answer: just about nobody. Thanks McCain, you really helped out all of those 30 year old freshmen that are crawling all over our 4 year universities.
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,072
- 1,476
- 126
Ok, let's do correct math here. We'll work on your 10,000 number. The way this ACTUALLY works is this. 10,000 are serving and eligible for re-enlistment. Now you're assuming this bill is changing it from 100% re-enlist to 16% don't. That's incorrect math. BETTER math (and actually correct) would be to say that of those 10000, 1500 wouldn't re-enlist. And this bill would increase that 1500 by 16%, creating a re-up loss of 240, not 1600. You apply the 16% number to the amount of people that wouldn't be re-enlisting to see what the increase to that number would be. And if we normally lose 10k a year, and that increases by 1600, but we normally recruit 10k a year and that increases by 16% we gain 1600. I'd have to look at the actual number of people who don't re-enlist vs recruitment numbers to know if this is an actual gain, loss, or break even. But the math of applying the 16% loss to the entire military is just ignorant use of math. Don't try and fuck with the numbers to prove your wrong point, shit like that got us into Iraq in the first place.
Guys, doing math with made up numbers is not necessary. The CBO estimated the numbers of new recruits at 30,000 and the reduction in annual retention at 7,000. They already performed this exercise with the real numbers.
EDIT: In addition to that, the CBO estimated that this would increase the percentage of high quality recruits marginally as well. Another bonus.
EDIT: In addition to that, the CBO estimated that this would increase the percentage of high quality recruits marginally as well. Another bonus.
Well the estimated reduction in re-enlistment should tell you that, McCain or no McCain.
Think of the military like a business. The more people they can retain the better they are.
he also provides transferable benefits, though. so the guy who's provided 12 years of service to his country to use his benefits to send his kid to college.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter