And while I'm at it..

[docwebster]

Somebody want to try and put a positive spin on this?

The above, by the way, was snagged from tsjafo.

Comments

[gunhed.livejournal.com]

I'd say it's pretty much on par with the Army making wounded soldiers pay for their meals while in the hospital (which has been changed as noted here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/01/troops.meals/index.html)) and making them pay to get home once they're back in the U.S. on leave. Some airlines are doing a good thing about that, though, as noted here (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/2003/09/30/business/6893258.htm).

It makes me wonder how much the current administration really supports the troops.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Well, with the first, the expectation to pay allegedly comes from an allotment that these soldiers are given (24 dollars or 16 dollars a day or something like that) specifically to cover meals. Instead of taking the allotment away and providing free meals, the Army charges the same amount as the allotment..

That sounds fair to me.

[gunhed.livejournal.com]

On the face of it yeah, I agree that it seems fair. The soldiers get a "basic subsistence allowance" of $8.10 per day to cover their meals. They don't have to pay for their meals while in the hospital so the Army is simply asking them to return that money.

What bugs me about it is that Bush wants to send $87 billion to help rebuild Iraq and the Army is quibbling about $324 per day (according to a spokesman for Walter Reed Hospital)? Surely the public relations value of letting them keep the money is worth that amount.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Yup, now that pisses me off.