Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Customer Service | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

The Pentagon is considering eliminating danger pay for some service members in certain locations around the world. Your thoughts?

  1. Necessary
  2. Horrible idea
sort: oldest | newest




Jul-11-13 11:36 PM

Ron Paul is a backwoods, old-timey, racist charlatan.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 5:09 PM

The troops in Afgan should be the oniy ones getting danger pay. And we should be out of Afgan Like right NOW.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 2:51 PM

So, is the Pentagon currently made up of just Republicans?

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 2:05 PM

As usual, the very politically slanted views of the MDN are at the forefront again. The politicans who want to cut the hazardous duty pay for the military are the one who have never served in the military, so they have no idea of what they are doing (which is completely typical for the Republicans) and they are trying to put the burden on the backs of our brave service men and women!!

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 12:14 PM

Ed Snowden must be receiving danger pay today.

When you're in the armed services, it goes without any discussion or argument that some situations can become very dangerous. It's the army for crying out loud. You're paid to use armaments, bombs, bullets, you name it. That's how it works in the real world.

The commander-in-chief executive officer, President Obama, should receive danger pay, and probably does, especially when flying in Air Force One.

He gets paid a cool 400 grand, so a little overtime pay is deserved when the Situation Room is occupied. The President will golf on the best golf courses with that extra money for danger pay.

A few tens of thousands of enlisted personnel can sacrifice a few dollars per paycheck so Mr. Obama has more money.

The pay won't be eliminated, it will go to where it rightfully belongs, President Obama can be a beneficiary.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 11:13 AM

The question is vague because MDN editors are only interested in ginning up hatred against the US President.

8 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 10:18 AM

Well, if the Congress wasn't insisting the Pentagon spend $74 billion on stuff the Defense Department does not want, there would be plenty for the troops. Defense contractors win again.

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 7:40 AM

The question is very vague. Being a vet, I saw some places getting danger pay that weren’t dangerous like Guam. It is possible that it might be a proper thing to do but like I said the question is too vague.

15 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 5:44 AM

i would guess it's the pols that want to once again want to cut pay, not the pentagon. that way the libs have more to take from the productive and give to their vast army of takers.

5 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 9 of 9 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web