New Study Shows Expulsion Of Gays from the Military Under DADT Cost Taxpayers $669,900,000 (Congress, illegal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet congressional Republicans voted overwhelmingly to continue wasting taxpayer money to promote discrimination and the weakening of our armed forces by expelling gays from the military.
"The Government Accountability Office, the congressional watchdog agency, looked at the cases of 3,664 active duty personnel forced to leave the service from 2004 to 2009 because of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.
The cost came to an average of $52,800 to take each person out of the military and find and train a replacement, it found. And the report released Thursday says that 40% of those service members had skills in a 'critical' occupation or foreign language such as Arabic, or both."
If you look at all the 13,398 total gay discharges over the DADT era, at 50K a pop, that comes out to $669,900,000 tax dollars wasted.
Has there been a study done to analyze the cost of allowing them to remain?
In addition to the 40 million in direct-cost savings to the military each year, allowing gays to serve in the military will enhance the military and its ability to operate. We know this because all the studies into the effect of allowing open homosexuals to serve in the 38 or so militaries that allow it have shown this to be the case. This enhancement will undoubtedly save even more money. As to how much, I have no idea.
In addition to the 40 million in direct-cost savings to the military each year, allowing gays to serve in the military will enhance the military and its ability to operate. We know this because all the studies into the effect of allowing open homosexuals to serve in the 38 or so militaries that allow it have shown this to be the case. This enhancement will undoubtedly save even more money. As to how much, I have no idea.
I have said that while there may be some initial morale issues or other issues of violence or mistreatment of gays, I believe that in 20 years it would be a non-issue. I won't dispute that.
I do question the wisdom of placing openly gay individuals in some muslim countries, though.
Wow. If this is true there are formally educated idiots everywhere. Did they not bother to run a cost benefit analysis or a financial analysis and a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) on this policy? Idiots I tell you. Idiots! And who came up with don't ask, don't tell? Oh yes, a "liberal" president: Bill Clinton.
I have said that while there may be some initial morale issues or other issues of violence or mistreatment of gays, I believe that in 20 years it would be a non-issue. I won't dispute that.
I do question the wisdom of placing openly gay individuals in some muslim countries, though.
War is Hell .. and if you wanna play, you gotta pay ..
If gays want to be in the military, and exist on an equal footing, then they'll have to go where ever they are told to go .. Muslim country or not
Hold the phone for a second: how would the Muslim opponents know if any of the U.S. soldiers are gay? The gay soldiers are not going to be wearing a pink triangle and pink uniform with pride written across it. The soldiers will be unified and homogeneous in appearance. Let's be real. I'm sick of this contagious idiocy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigskydude
War is Hell .. and if you wanna play, you gotta pay ..
If gays want to be in the military, and exist on an equal footing, then they'll have to go where ever they are told to go .. Muslim country or not
Wow. If this is true there are formally educated idiots everywhere. Did they not bother to run a cost benefit analysis or a financial analysis and a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) on this policy? Idiots I tell you. Idiots! And who came up with don't ask, don't tell? Oh yes, a "liberal" president: Bill Clinton.
To be fair, Clinton tried to make is so that gays could serve openly. It was the congress who prevented him.
In response to Clinton's promise to allow gays to openly serve, the congress attached a law to the Defense Reauthorization Act of 1994 (what funds the Military) that codified the ban on gays in the military. That Federal law made it absolutely illegal for gays to serve in the military and called for their expulsion if discovered - period . DADT was Clinton's way to circumvent as best he could a law he fiercely disagreed with.
that once again demonstrates the hypocrisy of the extreme right-wing. it is unbelievable
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
