Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Or atleast half of that to poverty relief programs
But nope.

But LynchMob! If Senators don't spend their pork on economically and politically pointless manufacturing jobs, what else will they spend it on!?

Promoting more finance jobs? Because thats where the US is right now

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps

Hopefully that's sarcasm. It's pretty disgusting that a welfare recipient in NJ can be paid better than an E3.

To be frank, the pay scale for the US military is just plain disgusting.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps

Hopefully that's sarcasm. It's pretty disgusting that a welfare recipient in NJ can be paid better than an E3.

I dont' entirely disagree with your point, but a welfare recipient is "better paid." They may have total benefits in excess of the E3's base pay, but I'd wager that the total benefits an E3 gets would exceed any welfare recipient, particularly if both have children/spouses.

 Polonius wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps

Hopefully that's sarcasm. It's pretty disgusting that a welfare recipient in NJ can be paid better than an E3.

I dont' entirely disagree with your point, but a welfare recipient is "better paid." They may have total benefits in excess of the E3's base pay, but I'd wager that the total benefits an E3 gets would exceed any welfare recipient, particularly if both have children/spouses.

It's possible for both these things to be true. It's possible for the military budget to be unreasonably large, inefficiently allocated or otherwise in need of adjustment while still underpaying troops on an individual basis even if a meaningful part of those out of whack costs are personnel. It is also true the fact a person on social assistance may receive more money (or even overall benefits) than a soldier isn't particularly meaningful. It could mean the soldier is underpaid, it could mean the social assistance overpays, it could mean that the overall situations of soldier & social welfare recipient are very different not easily compared in a meaningful sense.

Even if we do accept that individual soldiers are underpaid and individual welfare recipients are universally overpaid this still doesn't preclude the possibility that in a broader analysis social welfare is underfunded while military personnel is over-funded.

Not that I'm trying to making any strong claims here about soldier's compensation, military budgets or the like specifically. It's just that an outraged comparison of two items with no context is a poor argument against anything, even the paper-thin post that was being responded to here.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I believe the USMC is even thinking of dropping as low as 150,000

Unless something has changed very recently, that's not accurate. There was some talk of dropping as low as the 170s awhile back (I want to say 174-176k) but it's looking like it will be closer to 182-184k. Which is still higher than the USMC's pre-9/11 strength.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
As far as reserves/national guard.....yeah they all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage. As far as "Bloated logistics" infantry are easy to train and deploy in units, its the logistics and crap that usually slows everything down.

This isn't true at all. I agree with CptJake in that it varies. Some reserve and National Guard units have performed just fine, particularly the ones that have deployed a lot. And some haven't performed as well, but they also have far fewer resources to work with.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the reserve components of some services bring force-multiplying capabilities to the table that the active component doesn't have. For example, many civil affairs units are reserve units. Some reserve units deploy quite a bit, or have deployed quite a bit in the past. Many reserve units also have a lot of members who did one or more terms of service on active duty prior to joining their reserve units, so bring all of that experience to the table.

Reservists also regularly deploy as individual augments to active duty units. If they never mention it themselves, most of their active duty fellows wouldn't have any way of knowing they were a reservist.

So, I'm not saying that reserve units and the National Guard are all super elite ninjas. Obviously active duty units with more resources and more training time are going to generally be expected to perform better. But to say that reserve units and National Guard units "all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage" simply isn't true and doesn't tell the whole story.

 Ghazkuul wrote:


As far as reserves/national guard.....yeah they all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage. As far as "Bloated logistics" infantry are easy to train and deploy in units, its the logistics and crap that usually slows everything down.

Can you just stop talking now? Your ignorance is making the room stink.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


As far as reserves/national guard.....yeah they all suck, doesn't matter what branch of service they are all garbage. As far as "Bloated logistics" infantry are easy to train and deploy in units, its the logistics and crap that usually slows everything down.

Can you just stop talking now? Your ignorance is making the room stink.

I missed the part I highlighted the first time I read this.

The Air Force guard and reserve folk fly a LOT of the missions in theater, from CAS to cargo/troop hauling to ISR to tanker missions.

Have to remember the Army Reserves are logistical, Aviation, and assorted support units of various MOS's

National Guard have units same as the Reserves but the Reserves do not have Combat Arm Units.

As for crack divisions like who are rapid deployment
82nd (Have a Brigade on Red status that can slam a Brigade on ground in under 18 hours, wheels up in 6)
101st similar but they're intensive Aviation dependent.
10th Mountain similar

Basically every unit in 18th Airborne Corp is light divisions but we pack a lot of Javelins that make a Ork cry in jealously

Then the nature of the conflict, geography of the area, abilit.................TERRAIN DICTATES

The Air Force Active, AF Reserves, and Air National Guard was heavily relied upon to sustain combat operations, combat logistics...........everything dealing logistic For OIF/OEF
C17 fleet was run to the ground
A10's were a God send
C5's flew their last missions into Afghanistan
F15's were at Bagram and Kandahar for CAS
Navy had that freaking Prowlers running 24/7 running their electronic full spectrum bubble to set off any IED's that could be radio detonated

Lets not forget the Jingle trucks bringing in a vast assortment of UP-armor vehicles (none from MRAP family)

Ghaz mention all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk keeping an eye on the screen that was attach to the blimp floating above the FoB. What we call "Eye in the Sky" He hasn't been "blessed" with additional schooling, training, and exposure to the many facets of the military.

Personally I'm more worried about 57,000 people losing their jobs than any loss in out military might. We'll still be far and away, the worlds largest military force. Hope fully no dakkaites get booted.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally I'm more worried about 57,000 people losing their jobs than any loss in out military might. We'll still be far and away, the worlds largest military force. Hope fully no dakkaites get booted.

The vast majority of those numbers will be through people who separate normally. They Army isn't exactly an employee friendly environment, so retention rates could be better... The Army will let a lot of people separate, and just not refill those shoes. Some people will be forced out, no question about that, but it won't be 57,000.

Actually they can be rehired eventually and/or hired through another Department/Agency

Only applicants who meet one of the employment authority categories below are eligible to apply for this job. You will be asked to identify which category or categories you meet, and to provide documents which prove you meet the category or categories you selected. See Proof of Eligibility for an extensive list of document requirements for all employment authorities.

Current Civilian Employee with the Department of the Army
Current Permanent Department of Defense (DOD) - Civilian Employee (non-Army)
Former Federal Employee, eligible for reinstatement
Eligible due to Interagency Career Transition Program (ICTAP)
Eligible under Veterans' Employment Opportunity Act (VEOA)
Veterans with a service-connected disability of 30% or more
Priority Placement Program, Program S (Military Spouse) registrants referred through the Automated Stopper and Referral System (ASARS) for this position

DJ. Remember the bolded part when you ETS

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally I'm more worried about 57,000 people losing their jobs than any loss in out military might. We'll still be far and away, the worlds largest military force. Hope fully no dakkaites get booted.

Depends on how you measure 'largest'. Most expensive? Yep. Most folks on active duty? Nope (beat by China, and India is pretty close behind us). Most tanks? Nope. Towed artillery? Not even close to #1. SP Arty? We're 4th. Total aircraft? We are #1 by a crap ton. Number of ships in the Navy? We're quite a bit behind 1 and 2 in that category...



http://www.globalfirepower.com


(I learned a bit going through some of those)

By largest I mean most powerful. At least I'm pretty sure we are...

A lot of money goes into S/M survivability.

If one had a choice between an American made IOTV body armor or Body Armor made by China.............
China still uses steel helmets
US uses Advance Combat Helmets


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
By largest I mean most powerful. At least I'm pretty sure we are...

Remember Stalin maxim, quote, law, or whatever however he said it

Quantity has quality eventually

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/army-cut-40000-soldiers-years-150708005037637.html

The reason given is too save money, but I'm not convinced.

40,000 troops - is that equal to 4 divisions?

Anyway, what do people think: genuine cost cutting, or the USA in decline?

I could see an argument for a leaner, meaner military, but I'm not getting that vibe.

Sign of the USA in decline? No.

I think it's just the simple reality of the fact that we aren't engaging in two simultaneous foreign occupations on the other side of the planet anymore that required hundreds of thousands of soldiers, mercenaries, and logistical contractors to carry out.

The Army is also the least important of the 3 main branches to the direct defense of the United States in terms of territorial defense simply by the very nature of the geographic realities of the United States and its potential rivals, much like the UK.

Currently, the US simply does not need the same volume of forces it needed a few years ago. For any conventional military threat, the military is as large as it needs to be, possibly bigger. Hell, we've got a couple thousand multimillion dollar battle tanks sitting around depots that haven't been touched in years and no plans to utilize them any time soon. The US military had to swell when it operated as an occupation force for more than a decade in two different nations on the other side of the world. The US is no longer involved in that and as such, it can, and should, be drawn down a bit.

So, for a more nerdy reference, it's like the US is tau, and china is the IG. The US invests heavily onto having the soldiers alive, and china just gets as many soldiers as possible.

If we would stop giving our missiles away. Make your own damn missiles, or at least pay for them. Drop 40,000 troops, stock 40,000 missiles

I'm sure I'm being short-sighted tho'

After every 5 kills, our boys should be able to drop a missile.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/army-cut-40000-soldiers-years-150708005037637.html

The reason given is too save money, but I'm not convinced.

40,000 troops - is that equal to 4 divisions?

Anyway, what do people think: genuine cost cutting, or the USA in decline?

I could see an argument for a leaner, meaner military, but I'm not getting that vibe.

Sign of the USA in decline? No.

I think it's just the simple reality of the fact that we aren't engaging in two simultaneous foreign occupations on the other side of the planet anymore that required hundreds of thousands of soldiers, mercenaries, and logistical contractors to carry out.

The Army is also the least important of the 3 main branches to the direct defense of the United States in terms of territorial defense simply by the very nature of the geographic realities of the United States and its potential rivals, much like the UK.

Currently, the US simply does not need the same volume of forces it needed a few years ago. For any conventional military threat, the military is as large as it needs to be, possibly bigger. Hell, we've got a couple thousand multimillion dollar battle tanks sitting around depots that haven't been touched in years and no plans to utilize them any time soon. The US military had to swell when it operated as an occupation force for more than a decade in two different nations on the other side of the world. The US is no longer involved in that and as such, it can, and should, be drawn down a bit.

We have two conflicts budding right now with Asia's two strongest powers. This is hardly the time to be downsizing the military.

 djones520 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/army-cut-40000-soldiers-years-150708005037637.html

The reason given is too save money, but I'm not convinced.

40,000 troops - is that equal to 4 divisions?

Anyway, what do people think: genuine cost cutting, or the USA in decline?

I could see an argument for a leaner, meaner military, but I'm not getting that vibe.

Sign of the USA in decline? No.

I think it's just the simple reality of the fact that we aren't engaging in two simultaneous foreign occupations on the other side of the planet anymore that required hundreds of thousands of soldiers, mercenaries, and logistical contractors to carry out.

The Army is also the least important of the 3 main branches to the direct defense of the United States in terms of territorial defense simply by the very nature of the geographic realities of the United States and its potential rivals, much like the UK.

Currently, the US simply does not need the same volume of forces it needed a few years ago. For any conventional military threat, the military is as large as it needs to be, possibly bigger. Hell, we've got a couple thousand multimillion dollar battle tanks sitting around depots that haven't been touched in years and no plans to utilize them any time soon. The US military had to swell when it operated as an occupation force for more than a decade in two different nations on the other side of the world. The US is no longer involved in that and as such, it can, and should, be drawn down a bit.

We have two conflicts budding right now with Asia's two strongest powers. This is hardly the time to be downsizing the military.

Are we going to be fighting land wars requiring large numbers of conventional ground forces against nuclear equipped powers on the other side of the planet, many hundreds of miles from primarily supply points?

Methinks not.

Likewise, with this sort of mentality, there will never be a time to draw back military resources, there can always be a potential threat on the horizon pointed to to say we need to keep these large standing forces. That's how empires bankrupt themselves.

Lets look at the facts. Russia has been making military backed land grabs, in the Ukraine, greatly upsetting the power balance in that part of the world with it's annexation of the Crimea. It is now making rumblings at the Baltic states.

China has become very belligerent along a vital ocean route that sees a large percentage of the worlds shipping, not to mention air traffic. They've been massively building their military might, especially their capability to project power. We have to very large, very powerful military powers, making real world moves that threaten not only the US's place in the world, but that of many of our allies.

Our response? Continual shrinkage of our military power. What does that say to those belligerent powers? It gives them the green light to go ahead.

Hell, this isn't even taking into account that we will end up putting combat forces on the ground in Iraq again within the next 5 years, and if US combat forces never enter Afghanistan again, I'll gak a gold brick. I've spent the last 4 months watching how effective the Afghan National Army is. Once we pull up out of here, this country is going to turn into a Taliban/ISIS cock fight.

 Jihadin wrote:
Have to remember the Army Reserves are logistical, Aviation, and assorted support units of various MOS's

National Guard have units same as the Reserves but the Reserves do not have Combat Arm Units.

As for crack divisions like who are rapid deployment
82nd (Have a Brigade on Red status that can slam a Brigade on ground in under 18 hours, wheels up in 6)
101st similar but they're intensive Aviation dependent.
10th Mountain similar

Basically every unit in 18th Airborne Corp is light divisions but we pack a lot of Javelins that make a Ork cry in jealously

Then the nature of the conflict, geography of the area, abilit.................TERRAIN DICTATES

The Air Force Active, AF Reserves, and Air National Guard was heavily relied upon to sustain combat operations, combat logistics...........everything dealing logistic For OIF/OEF
C17 fleet was run to the ground
A10's were a God send
C5's flew their last missions into Afghanistan
F15's were at Bagram and Kandahar for CAS
Navy had that freaking Prowlers running 24/7 running their electronic full spectrum bubble to set off any IED's that could be radio detonated

Lets not forget the Jingle trucks bringing in a vast assortment of UP-armor vehicles (none from MRAP family)

Ghaz mention all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk keeping an eye on the screen that was attach to the blimp floating above the FoB. What we call "Eye in the Sky" He hasn't been "blessed" with additional schooling, training, and exposure to the many facets of the military.

Reserves DO Have combat arms units, at least in the USMC they sure as hell do. As far as ALL reserves sucking. Maybe that was a little to broad, instead I will say EVERY SINGLE reserve unit I served near or on the same base as SUCKED terribly. Guards falling asleep on post, mechanics without the job skills to repair a vehicle they were assigned with.

"Ghaz Mentioned all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk" thats completely true, besides the patrols and support operations I was on, PB Whitehouse, PB Faheem, FOB Inkerman FOB nolay. been to all of those and did my fair share. Furthermore, My job was never operating a VBOS. I was a 2621 Operator AND analyst.

SO please lets keep up all the abuse from people who didn't even deploy or serve along side reserve units. For the handful that did and found reserve/guard units to be good, well they were the exception not the rule.

 djones520 wrote:
Once we pull up out of here, this country is going to turn into a Taliban/ISIS cock fight.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar pledged his group's support for DaIsh against the Talibs. That is an indicator of how the upcoming civil war is gonna go.



http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/07/afghan-terrorist-group-to-back-isis-against-taliban.html

 djones520 wrote:
Lets look at the facts. Russia has been making military backed land grabs, in the Ukraine, greatly upsetting the power balance in that part of the world with it's annexation of the Crimea. It is now making rumblings at the Baltic states.

China has become very belligerent along a vital ocean route that sees a large percentage of the worlds shipping, not to mention air traffic. They've been massively building their military might, especially their capability to project power. We have to very large, very powerful military powers, making real world moves that threaten not only the US's place in the world, but that of many of our allies.

Our response? Continual shrinkage of our military power. What does that say to those belligerent powers? It gives them the green light to go ahead.

Hell, this isn't even taking into account that we will end up putting combat forces on the ground in Iraq again within the next 5 years, and if US combat forces never enter Afghanistan again, I'll gak a gold brick. I've spent the last 4 months watching how effective the Afghan National Army is. Once we pull up out of here, this country is going to turn into a Taliban/ISIS cock fight.

Russia thus far has been intelligent enough not to actively mess with a NATO member. Neither Ukraine, nor Georgia, were NATO members, and in Georgia's case, they did something stupid first. The Russian moves primarily are aimed at internal audiences to distract from internal issues. Even with drawn down ground forces, Russia cannot deal with a large, conventional conflict against the US military. Russia has lots of troops and tanks, but not trained, equipped or supplied to the same standard of the US military and certainly can't be employed for anywhere near as long without major headaches, particularly in offensive operations on foreign soil. And, again, it must be kept in mind that if anything did come to open conflict, this would have a short and unfortunate escalation ladder given that Russia and the US are the two largest nuclear powers on the planet, and that's about the only thing anywhere near parity that Russia has with the US, even with a drawn down army, meaning that's Russia's only real card to level the playing field. Russia has her own problems and a large scale shooting war with NATO is that last thing she's really capable of right now.

Likewise, with China, what is the Army going to do? That's going to be a Navy/Marine/Air Force/special-forces deal, *if* anything comes to blows, and that's a rather huge *IF*. Most of China's issues are not with nations that the US has strong military interests with. It's not going to be something where the US Army throws its bulk into a land war in Asia with a nuclear armed opponent. A drawing down of the US army isn't going to have much of an effect here. This is to say nothing of the economic disaster for both nations if trade were to cease.

What we're talking about isn't an undercutting of the US army in most respects, in large part it's about returning to an appropriate size and a move away from being a long term occupation force.

Sure, we may put some forces back into Iraq or Afghanistan, I would not rule that out. Special forces, maybe a few hundred or a couple thousand troops? Sure. But going back with six digits worth of soldiers, for years on end, that such extra troops would be required for? Can't see it happening any time in the near future, instant political suicide.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Have to remember the Army Reserves are logistical, Aviation, and assorted support units of various MOS's

National Guard have units same as the Reserves but the Reserves do not have Combat Arm Units.

As for crack divisions like who are rapid deployment
82nd (Have a Brigade on Red status that can slam a Brigade on ground in under 18 hours, wheels up in 6)
101st similar but they're intensive Aviation dependent.
10th Mountain similar

Basically every unit in 18th Airborne Corp is light divisions but we pack a lot of Javelins that make a Ork cry in jealously

Then the nature of the conflict, geography of the area, abilit.................TERRAIN DICTATES

The Air Force Active, AF Reserves, and Air National Guard was heavily relied upon to sustain combat operations, combat logistics...........everything dealing logistic For OIF/OEF
C17 fleet was run to the ground
A10's were a God send
C5's flew their last missions into Afghanistan
F15's were at Bagram and Kandahar for CAS
Navy had that freaking Prowlers running 24/7 running their electronic full spectrum bubble to set off any IED's that could be radio detonated

Lets not forget the Jingle trucks bringing in a vast assortment of UP-armor vehicles (none from MRAP family)

Ghaz mention all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk keeping an eye on the screen that was attach to the blimp floating above the FoB. What we call "Eye in the Sky" He hasn't been "blessed" with additional schooling, training, and exposure to the many facets of the military.

Reserves DO Have combat arms units, at least in the USMC they sure as hell do. As far as ALL reserves sucking. Maybe that was a little to broad, instead I will say EVERY SINGLE reserve unit I served near or on the same base as SUCKED terribly. Guards falling asleep on post, mechanics without the job skills to repair a vehicle they were assigned with.

"Ghaz Mentioned all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk" thats completely true, besides the patrols and support operations I was on, PB Whitehouse, PB Faheem, FOB Inkerman FOB nolay. been to all of those and did my fair share. Furthermore, My job was never operating a VBOS. I was a 2621 Operator AND analyst.

SO please lets keep up all the abuse from people who didn't even deploy or serve along side reserve units. For the handful that did and found reserve/guard units to be good, well they were the exception not the rule.

Yes, the USMC Reserve has combat arms units, as does the National Guard. As far as I know, the Army Reserve does not, and that's what Jihadin was referring to. I believe you that there were reservists who didn't perform well where you were at. But to take that as an indication that all reserve units are "garbage" is simply ridiculous, and quite frankly, not true. I guarantee you that there are active duty Marines and soldiers who have fallen asleep on post and that didn't have the skills to repair a vehicle they were assigned on at some point. The difference is when someone comes across a service member like that, they don't take it as an indication that all active duty units are "garbage." In both the active and reserve components, there are ways to address those kinds of issues, and none of them involve writing off entire units as "garbage."

I don't think folks who want to shrink manpower as much as is being proposed really understand how many places we have how many troops and how 'boots on the ground' intensive the "Build Partner Capacity" mission really is.

Take the 'find Kony' mission. True, only 100 or so guys deployed at a time, but that is taking about 500 out of the force pool as they go through the various deploy/recover/train cycles and also need a lot of support (though some is provided via reachback, those guys are committed to the mission and can't easily be re-tasked).

Now, that is a small example, I get that. But unless we are willing to disengage from all kinds of mission we have going on in the 150 so countries we have a presence in, shrinking the force AND maintaining a trained and ready contingency force isn't easy. I know units having a hard time now covering down on all the stuff they have going on.

 CptJake wrote:
I don't think folks who want to shrink manpower as much as is being proposed really understand how many places we have how many troops and how 'boots on the ground' intensive the "Build Partner Capacity" mission really is.

Take the 'find Kony' mission. True, only 100 or so guys deployed at a time, but that is taking about 500 out of the force pool as they go through the various deploy/recover/train cycles and also need a lot of support (though some is provided via reachback, those guys are committed to the mission and can't easily be re-tasked).

Now, that is a small example, I get that. But unless we are willing to disengage from all kinds of mission we have going on in the 150 so countries we have a presence in, shrinking the force AND maintaining a trained and ready contingency force isn't easy. I know units having a hard time now covering down on all the stuff they have going on.

Right. Afghanistan for example. We have 10,000 troops here. 101 CAB is here, but really only half of it. So only about 1,000 personnel are needed for the mission here. But that leave only half a CAB back in garrison, that can't do anything but continue training. They don't have the staff to support any operations, because all of the vital components are here. So you've got 1,000 folks deployed, and that takes 2,000 folks out of action.

We have 10,000 in Afghanistan, but we've probably got twice the numbers of that throughout the rest of the world also directly supporting the mission here. The Air Force and Navy have to have multiple bases set up outside of the country just to support the logistics here. We have massive units back state side supporting the CiC for things here as well. People only see the "10,000 boots on ground" but they don't realize that the foot print supporting that also exists.

I pointed out in another thread recently that much of our service is pretty burned out as well. We've been carrying this burden for a long time now, and us lifers are getting pretty tired of it. Cutting are man power just tells us one things. We're only going to get busier. Doesn't do a whole lot to make us feel better, stay enthused about this, etc...

Edit: All of these numbers are generalizations, so no one needs to start yelling about OPSEC or anything like that.

 Polonius wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps

Hopefully that's sarcasm. It's pretty disgusting that a welfare recipient in NJ can be paid better than an E3.

I dont' entirely disagree with your point, but a welfare recipient is "better paid." They may have total benefits in excess of the E3's base pay, but I'd wager that the total benefits an E3 gets would exceed any welfare recipient, particularly if both have children/spouses.

As someone who was a welfare recipient in the state of NJ, I can tell you that an E3 is better paid.