Debt Repayment

[brickhistory]

Dang, there you go again; putting facts into the discussion.

Pilots (and navs) wouldn't exaggerate for effect. And those slacker PJs, special tactics guys, gunners, FEs, loads, et al, just sit around with their snack jars of paste waiting for someone to fix it for them.

[MilitaryToFinance]

And in from left field with the third most useless comment on this post is busdriver.

busdriver, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Actually what he said was a pretty common phrase. You've seriously never heard that before?

[Guest scooney]

So last year I was given per diem when I was not authorized (in there terms, but thats another discussion) so it came to me filling out the debt remittance request that gets sent to the finance center in SD. They came back and said that I had to pay this debt. Is there any way of finding out the package that was sent to them for their review (our finance has been known to leave things out), and is there a way to see the package (if any) that was back explaining their decision?

[capt4fans]

Actually what he said was a pretty common phrase. You've seriously never heard that before?

Do any of you understand English? Did I ever say I hadn't heard that? Did I ever say "I wish", or "I want" Pretty sure those words were never used. I said, "I'd like".

Whatever happened to people actually being able to read?

[Beaver]

Dang, there you go again; putting facts into the discussion.

Pilots (and navs) wouldn't exaggerate for effect. And those slacker PJs, special tactics guys, gunners, FEs, loads, et al, just sit around with their snack jars of paste waiting for someone to fix it for them.

Somebody get Brick a hurt feelings report.

[Guest]

Do any of you understand English? Did I ever say I hadn't heard that? Did I ever say "I wish", or "I want" Pretty sure those words were never used. I said, "I'd like".

Whatever happened to people actually being able to read?

You might want to write up your computer. It makes you sound like a chick.

[capt4fans]

You might want to write up your computer. It makes you sound like a chick.

That's funny, because yours makes you sound like a dick.

See that, it rhymes.

[M2]

C'mon guys, play nice.

And just to note, I'd much rather look at capt4fans' avatar than Rainman's!

Cheers! M2

[Finance_Guy]

So last year I was given per diem when I was not authorized (in there terms, but thats another discussion) so it came to me filling out the debt remittance request that gets sent to the finance center in SD. They came back and said that I had to pay this debt. Is there any way of finding out the package that was sent to them for their review (our finance has been known to leave things out), and is there a way to see the package (if any) that was back explaining their decision?

Did you file for a waiver or remission? Not sure you will ever see explanations explaining the decision unless it was a DOHA claim (those are posted on-line). I'm sure they look at the fact you received per diem when you may not have had meal expenses, so one has to question why would one expect to receive $$ for meals they don't have to purchase. Example is errors made on deployment vouchers to the AOR. Here's a good DOHA case read: https://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/claims/military/07011710.html

Example: I went to the AOR and we all know I get $3.50/day (about $100/Month). I get back and file a voucher and magically I get a per diem check for $5,000. Now do I just go spend this extra $4,600 dollars (or keep it and don't say anything) or go to finance and insist on paying it back? I'd say the former happens most of the time.

But getting back to your question, you could ask finance but they have no obligation to show you what they sent. If you have new facts or want to file for financial hardship, you could file a rebuttal.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Finance_Guy

[capt4fans]

C'mon guys, play nice.

And just to note, I'd much rather look at capt4fans' avatar than Rainman's!

Cheers! M2

M2....I've been trying to play nice. I asked a simple question, which was off due to spelling (statue vs statute) all my fault. I take that ribbing, because I would have done the same thing. It's all the other shoes who's decided to jump into a conversation with nothing to add but Bullshit. I thank Finance Guy for the help, the rest.....well, let's just leave that unsaid.

[Guest]

That's funny, because yours makes you sound like a dick.

Not sure what Freud would say about you maxing out the size of the word dick...not that I'm suggesting you have a fixation.

FWIW, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I suggested it was your computer making you sound like that.

BTW, it's not my computer making me sound like this to you. What you see is what you get.

[pawnman]

Did you file for a waiver or remission? Not sure you will ever see explanations explaining the decision unless it was a DOHA claim (those are posted on-line). I'm sure they look at the fact you received per diem when you may not have had meal expenses, so one has to question why would one expect to receive $$ for meals they don't have to purchase. Example is errors made on deployment vouchers to the AOR. Here's a good DOHA case read: https://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/claims/military/07011710.html

Example: I went to the AOR and we all know I get $3.50/day (about $100/Month). I get back and file a voucher and magically I get a per diem check for $5,000. Now do I just go spend this extra $4,600 dollars (or keep it and don't say anything) or go to finance and insist on paying it back? I'd say the former happens most of the time.

But getting back to your question, you could ask finance but they have no obligation to show you what they sent. If you have new facts or want to file for financial hardship, you could file a rebuttal.

Then you have to hope finance will actually take it back. Our intel officer tried for three months to pay it back and finance insisted everything was fine. Eventually finance figured out she owed the money...for which she wrote a check. Then they kept trying to collect, because "she couldn't prove she'd paid the debt". The cancelled check was not proof enough. This one was resolved when she got her boss at the time (3-star) involved.

[Guest]

I saw rainman's avatar in the Smithsonian. I allowed myself 15 minutes while in DC to try and appreciate a little modern art. It was disgusting.

Very good. Few would be so well informed to make the connection. Fewer yet would make the effort.

But you did. You went to see the art and you were enlightened, even though it caused some discomfort. The question you need to ask yourself is "why?".

You, sir, are to be commended and respected as a truth seeker.

[Guest]

And I'm supposed to think that's unacceptable.

You're not supposed to think anything.

[M2]

Holy shit, is this turning into an art discussion?!?

[Guest]

Holy shit, is this turning into an art discussion?!?

M2, this thing went off the track a long time ago when someone got a little too sensitive.

[tac airlifter]

You're not supposed to think anything.

Therein lies the crux of conflict between classical and modern/post-modern thinking regarding the arts. Feel free to carry on with the drama contest, but I simply can't abide the notion that artistic enlightenment can be attained by asking questions instead of providing answers.

[tac airlifter]

I think you make an interesting point, but I don't believe the hyper-realistic artistic style of the sculpture falls within the realm of modernism/post-modernism. In presenting a brutal reality in a larger than life scale, the artist is essentially challenging the viewer to confront the question of whether the institutions of civilization and society have corrupted the viewer's ability to judge a true representation of human form as pleasing/acceptable or uncomfortable/unacceptable, and have we been conditioned to view these things through a lens of popular culture biases. It's also challenging to do as Rainman says, and not think about it, which is really the only way to determine if you can appreciate the work in your purest of mind, free of external influences.

Me? I'm corrupted.

Just as tactics and strategy are different, style and substance are also different. The style, mechanics or technique are not the definition of modernism or post-modernism. The substance, or mentality of approaching art and creation fundamentally changed away from classicalism; and it's this schism I refer to. The idea of successful art forcing the viewer to question some aspect of themselves or their own assumptions is inherently a product of modernism. This differs significantly from the classical approach of telling the viewer something and judging it's own success by the ability to convey the artists intent to the viewer visually. At the heart of modernism is the concept that "good art" cannot be quantified whereas the classical artist is judged on his ability to express his thoughts to the viewer. This is why modern artists argue that there is no real definition of art, whereas those schooled classically will respond that art is an image which expresses an emotion (or intellectual idea). Not that modernism and classicalism are the only two schools out there! But the idea of modernism forcing the viewer to question something and thereby become "enlightened" was off putting enough that I had to enter this absurdly off track bitch fest to have my say.

[capt4fans]

M2, this thing went off the track a long time ago when someone got a little too sensitive.

Hey, you're the one that got her panties in a wad......

[Guest]

...I simply can't abide the notion that artistic enlightenment can be attained by asking questions instead of providing answers.

Consider both.