Are Military pensions too generous?

[Deadelf]

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ps=915&rip_id=%3CD9P71C282%40news.ap.org%3E&news_id=17152567&src=most_popular_viewed&page=1


Crap like this really irks me. As prior combat arms and having served at a time when it wasn't cool and you didn't get cheered for your service I know and understand how hard the job can be.

That there are those who are looking at cutting more benefits from the military after the way they've been treated during the past decade just pisses me off to no end.

High stress, mentally and physically demanding jobs like the military, law enforcement and fire dept. have benefits like these laid out for a reason. I see no need to gut these services and it is an insult to those who serve to even consider it.

They want to cut some spending? Start with congress, senate, presidential and judge retirement pay, medical benefits. Do everyone not just looking at fucking the military over once again.

[Androidpk]

They want to cut some spending? Start with congress, senate, presidential and judge retirement pay, medical benefits.

This. Leave the military pension system alone.

[4a6c1]

Does it suprise you that to Washington Republicans you are just another entitlement to be cut?

Their corporate lobbies > Your service to your country

They need to protect the people that fund their campaigns. To them you are just fodder to fight a war.

[Middian]

This makes my shit itch! I remember working 82 hour weeks in Iraq, you put your time in, you need to have some ray of sunshine at the end. Glory to god and country can go only so far!

[Stanley Burrell]

That is colossally wrong. Someone who's reached ripe age years after enlisting tells me something damn certain about that individual's character. I know too many homeless and financially burdened vets in their 50's and older who are being disposed of. I mean, I feel this way about any older folks who've been good-hearted people and have contributed to our society by putting in real work -- and get the rough end of the stick.

The banks are on the financially risky individuals like white on rice. At best, this is way too damn cautious.

[kookiegod]

Heya Jim...

Yah, agreed. As a former member of a combat infantry unit though not to retirment or combat, i agree , the folks who do , earned it.

~paul

[Delias]

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ps=915&rip_id=%3CD9P71C282%40news.ap.org%3E&news_id=17152567&src=most_popular_viewed&page=1


Crap like this really irks me. As prior combat arms and having served at a time when it wasn't cool and you didn't get cheered for your service I know and understand how hard the job can be.

That there are those who are looking at cutting more benefits from the military after the way they've been treated during the past decade just pisses me off to no end.

High stress, mentally and physically demanding jobs like the military, law enforcement and fire dept. have benefits like these laid out for a reason. I see no need to gut these services and it is an insult to those who serve to even consider it.

They want to cut some spending? Start with congress, senate, presidential and judge retirement pay, medical benefits. Do everyone not just looking at fucking the military over once again.


I think the majority of the people are with you on this... just not the soulless cocksuckers who are supposed to represent said people.

[Sheikh]

I am an infantry marine, 0311, and have been in for 8 years, and shit like this really irritates me.

I have spent over 2 years on combat deployments, and when I find out that my benefits are up for debate about being reduced, I am not a happy camper.

[vamosj]

I have 18 years of service in and am happy as hell that I'm getting out now...

This new plans is crap for those wanting to make the military a career unless you really play the investment game.

On the other hand, for those doing 1 or 2 enlistments this is actually beneficial for them as now, no matter how much time they are spending in the military, they will have more than just their time, training, and G.I. Bill to show for it as it's now a 401k to them.

[Tgo01]

If someone serves in the military for 20 years they deserve a nice pension.

[Fallen]

Very few people make it out of the Armed Forces after 20+ years of service without some sizable health problems. Disability does not equate to a pension. Lifers earned their money, leave it be.

[Inspire]

I'd like to see a lot things cut before we take things away from the people protecting our country.

[Fallen]

It'd be one thing if we weren't marching off into one war after another. At the maximum, I would say restrict these cuts to those who never deployed into a combat zone.

[Thickbeard]

There should be some delay to the pension being paid in some cases. Age 48 to death is an awfully long time to pay someone for 20 years of work if they didn't see combat.

I am also an army veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom II who saw combat and served my country for 4 years, so I can see some getting early retirement. Especially those who suffer from invisible wounds like extreme cases of PTSD. I had a relatively mild case of PTSD and wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Edit: Actually age 38 to death, and not 48 unless they join when 28 years old.

[kookiegod]

If someone serves in the military for 20 years they deserve a nice pension.

Anyone who served in combat....

I want nothing for myself, i did a few years, got some bennies, was good and useful training and lifeskills.

Anyone who put their life on the line, nah, don't change a thing

[Lord Orbstar]

I have 18 years of service in and am happy as hell that I'm getting out now...

This new plans is crap for those wanting to make the military a career unless you really play the investment game.

On the other hand, for those doing 1 or 2 enlistments this is actually beneficial for them as now, no matter how much time they are spending in the military, they will have more than just their time, training, and G.I. Bill to show for it as it's now a 401k to them.

you need to do your last two years..dont be dumb. I have 26 years in and counting. unfortunately only 11 of that is active duty. dont be me.

[Warriorbird]

It shouldn't be messed with. America's done silly things with military pensions (unpaid pensions for the Revolutionary War spawned Shay's Rebellion and WW1 the Bonus March) and none of them have ever been right.

[Androidpk]

Being in combat is a moot point. Just because you aren't in a combat position doesn't mean you aren't doing backbreaking, vital work.

[Deadelf]

I just had to vent about it, stuff like this always pisses me off to no end. Thanks for allowing me to, and for the mass general agreement. I just hope it dies and they don't go any further with this crap.

[RichardCranium]

maybe if they weren't buying billion dollar bombs to drop on remote deserts they would have more loot for our men on the wall

You are the poster boy for the Patriot Act.

[Gelston]

I'd say the only reason I'd have ever stayed in the military for 20+ years would be for the retirement pay. I'm sure it is the driving force behind a lot of guys that reenlist with plans to retire out. If cut I could see the military getting some retention problems, along with the quality of our troops going down due to less senior leaders.

Why would someone stay in and collect a regular 401k if they could get out, use their GI Bill and make double the money without all the bullshit the military gives? That pension is a damn finish line.

[Rinualdo]

Doesn't there come a point where we have to say that you can be too generous and that the fiscal cost is unsustainable?

[Tgo01]

Doesn't there come a point where we have to say that you can be too generous and that the fiscal cost is unsustainable?

Yes but as Deadelf suggested they can start at so many other places or do some cuts for pay and benefits for government employees across the board.

[Ardwen]

2 years in the house or 6 in the senate and ya get a lifetime pension of some insane value and generally better medical then the service folks, I know where the cuts should start.

[Androidpk]

2 years in the house or 6 in the senate and ya get a lifetime pension of some insane value and generally better medical then the service folks, I know where the cuts should start.

Pipedream!

[Back]

Heres an idea. Lets Incorporate America.

All Americans are employees of America Inc. All American Inc. efforts are towards profits and quality of life for American Inc. employees. All employees get a paycheck every week, along with paid health care, paid student loans, paid housing, paid energy, and the ability to generate value to spend on quality goods.

[Tgo01]

Heres an idea. Lets Incorporate America.

All Americans are employees of America Inc. All American Inc. efforts are towards profits and quality of life for American Inc. employees. All employees get a paycheck every week, along with paid health care, paid student loans, paid housing, paid energy, and the ability to generate value to spend on quality goods.

Hasn't Communism been tried and failed?

[Back]

Hasn't Communism been tried and failed?

Where did you hear that?

[Rinualdo]

2 years in the house or 6 in the senate and ya get a lifetime pension of some insane value and generally better medical then the service folks, I know where the cuts should start.

That might have a positive feel good notion, but it would be fiscally insignificant compared to military pensions.

[Lord Orbstar]

Comrade, keep beating that drum of ignorance. Then make sure you are registered fir selective service. The small core of lifers are what maintains continuity and institutional kowledge. additionally, those retirement incentives and benefits are what sustains the smart volunteer force of today...and the future.

But you keep pushing your thoughts and superficial understanding...maybe more will come to believe you are right. We can have the military of the late seventies again!!

Za nashu zemlu chestnuyu. I am sure you can understand that..shaky as it is spelled. keep up the fight.

[TheEschaton]

The Congress is 535 people with like a 98% re-election rate (IE, real low turnover). Those pensions are statistically insignificant.

[Archigeek]

The Congress is 535 people with like a 98% re-election rate (IE, real low turnover). Those pensions are statistically insignificant.

Perhaps, but it would be demonstrably significant.

[crb]

I'm torn on this issue. I don't want to take anything away from 20 year service members, but it does kinda suck that people who get out earlier get nothing. Then again, they can go to college for free, so that is kinda like a retirement benefit since it should provide you with more money over your lifetime so long as you don't pick a major like art history.

In anycase, combat veterans should be the last people in the country who lose their pensions. Every other government employee at local state and federal levels needs to lose it first.

If every other public employee hasn't already lost it, then combat veterans shouldn't.

Of course, I am in favor of every other public employee being moved to defined contribution retirement plans. But I think I would even stop there.

[Rinualdo]

Comrade, keep beating that drum of ignorance. Then make sure you are registered fir selective service. The small core of lifers are what maintains continuity and institutional kowledge. additionally, those retirement incentives and benefits are what sustains the smart volunteer force of today...and the future.

But you keep pushing your thoughts and superficial understanding...maybe more will come to believe you are right. We can have the military of the late seventies again!!

Za nashu zemlu chestnuyu. I am sure you can understand that..shaky as it is spelled. keep up the fight.

To whom are you referring?


The Congress is 535 people with like a 98% re-election rate (IE, real low turnover). Those pensions are statistically insignificant.

Exactly.


I'm torn on this issue. I don't want to take anything away from 20 year service members, but it does kinda suck that people who get out earlier get nothing. Then again, they can go to college for free, so that is kinda like a retirement benefit since it should provide you with more money over your lifetime so long as you don't pick a major like art history.

In anycase, combat veterans should be the last people in the country who lose their pensions. Every other government employee at local state and federal levels needs to lose it first.

If every other public employee hasn't already lost it, then combat veterans shouldn't.

Of course, I am in favor of every other public employee being moved to defined contribution retirement plans. But I think I would even stop there.

The proposal isn't to make them lose their pensions, but to restructure and bring in line those pensions with other federal workers, including FBI, CIA, DEA, Border Patrol, etc.

[Parkbandit]

The Congress is 535 people with like a 98% re-election rate (IE, real low turnover). Those pensions are statistically insignificant.

Very true... doesn't mean they should be in place. I mean, seriously.. you work for 2+ years and you "earn" a pension for life? How the hell did that ever come into being?

We should work on removing that bullshit.. as well as the barriers that enable a 13% favorable rating to benefit from a "real low turnover rate"

[Parkbandit]

Doesn't there come a point where we have to say that you can be too generous and that the fiscal cost is unsustainable?

I'm going to blow up the Internet right now.... because I am going to agree with Rinualdo.

I think our military is over-bloated with a shitload of dead weight, especially at the top. We have more navy admirals than we do ships for fuck sake.

Trim the fat and then continue with the pensions for the people that actually deserve it.

[Lord Orbstar]

Rinauldo. You.

[Kyra231]

I'd say the only reason I'd have ever stayed in the military for 20+ years would be for the retirement pay. I'm sure it is the driving force behind a lot of guys that reenlist with plans to retire out. If cut I could see the military getting some retention problems, along with the quality of our troops going down due to less senior leaders.

Why would someone stay in and collect a regular 401k if they could get out, use their GI Bill and make double the money without all the bullshit the military gives? That pension is a damn finish line.


:yeahthat: I can see the military having a McDonalds like turnover fairly quickly. It took me a while to get over being pissed at the sheer amount of horseshit the military dishes out Every. Damn. Day. to their soldiers & I'm only married to one, not enlisted.

No way people are going to stay in other than GI money if there's nothing to bother with at the end. Then we can have the LOL@USA military.

[Tgo01]

I'm torn on this issue. I don't want to take anything away from 20 year service members, but it does kinda suck that people who get out earlier get nothing.

They can stay in then. I've talked to a lot of people who have been in the military and I can't recall a single person saying it was unfair that they 'got nothing' for not staying for 20 years. In fact they always say they should have stayed in for the 20 years and got their pension. It's always "Yeah, I should have stayed in the extra 3 years, don't know why I didn't."

Now it's going to be "Hell I should have stayed in the military 3 years less."

[Latrinsorm]

We should work on removing that bullshit.. as well as the barriers that enable a 13% favorable rating to benefit from a "real low turnover rate"The main barrier is human psychology. For whatever reason, people prefer electing an incumbent they don't like over a candidate they don't know. The only systematic way of getting around that would be term limits, but that's pretty condescending and paternalistic. If we're going to go that route, it seems to me we may as well skip right to voter eligibility tests.

[Taernath]

The Congress is 535 people with like a 98% re-election rate (IE, real low turnover). Those pensions are statistically insignificant.

I think you'll find the amount of 20+ year military retirees is also statistically insignificant when compared to the rest of the nation and other proposed spending cuts.

[Parkbandit]

The main barrier is human psychology. For whatever reason, people prefer electing an incumbent they don't like over a candidate they don't know. The only systematic way of getting around that would be term limits, but that's pretty condescending and paternalistic. If we're going to go that route, it seems to me we may as well skip right to voter eligibility tests.

Actually, it has less to do with what you claim and more to do with the crazy way people in power redistrict territories. Also, push for term limits and election reform would help.

[Tgo01]

According to this (http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/20/commentary/wastler/wastler/index.htm)site members of Congress can receive a pension at the age of 62 if they have at least 5 years of service, age of 50 with at least 20 years of service or anytime if they have at least 25 years of service.

Really that's not bad at all. Also according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States)site (Wikipedia, I know) Veterans pensions is 54.6 billion dollars. Yes that's a lot of money but considering the requirements to receive such a pension it shouldn't be one of our priorities at the moment.

[Latrinsorm]

Actually, it has less to do with what you claim and more to do with the crazy way people in power redistrict territories. Also, push for term limits and election reform would help.Don't tell me you got suckered in by the gerrymandering shtick? Incumbency bias is just as prevalent in the Senate. There have been people who kept their seat in the United States Senate unopposed. The United States Senate! I mean, come on already.

Yes, there are corrupt politicians, but how much faith do you really have in their ability to plot, scheme, machinate? They're not exactly geniuses.

[Jarvan]

Don't tell me you got suckered in by the gerrymandering shtick? Incumbency bias is just as prevalent in the Senate. There have been people who kept their seat in the United States Senate unopposed. The United States Senate! I mean, come on already.

Yes, there are corrupt politicians, but how much faith do you really have in their ability to plot, scheme, machinate? They're not exactly geniuses.

Frankly, the Senate election by Voting was the stupidest thing we could have done as a country. The whole point of NOT having the people vote for the Senate was that they already voted for the people in the House.

We should go back to the Senate being appointed by the state they come from. That way, they do what the state wants them to do, and if they don't they just get replaced. Course this will never happen, mainly do to the fact that some Senators are pretty much elected for life ( Ted Kennedy ), and there is no way they would want to take that chance.

As for Term limits, they will also never agree to that as well. And that's where there is a tiny flaw in our system in a sense. Those in power have to institute the changes to our Constitution, and you know they will never vote on something that would limit, remove, or affect their power base.

Granted, the States could force a vote on a term limit amendment, but it's highly unlikely they would. As any limitation in federal terms would also likely be directed to state and local terms as well, not to mention the fact that many local or state people want to be in Congress.

This all being said. I think Military pensions should be addressed last. Are they sometimes to good to be true? Yes, but that doesn't mean it should be taken away.

A friend of mine's husband had 20 years in the Navy, and the only way he can make ends meet now that he is out is due to his pension. Without it, they would be screwed. Of course, an option would be to allow those coming INTO the Military to choose, 401k from day one, or pension in 20 years if they stay.

[Shaps]

To those that think the "benefits are to good to be true", or equate any job where they drive to work and the worst they have to expect is maybe spilling their coffee on them, to the military is absurd.

If someone makes it through 20 years of Military service, has served in a combat zone, and more importantly actually been in combat (whatever their reason for joining), is NOTHING like normal people and their jobs.

To spend every day with their family, the option to do what they want when they want, to not have to put themselves physically or mentally through being shot at or shooting others. To equate the 401K business model to a typical 20 year pension paid at 65 is complete and utter crap from those that have never dealt with it.

-----From the article

The board members are from big businesses — experts, the Pentagon says, in executive management, corporate governance, audit and finance, human resources, economics, technology and health care.

------

Don't see Military personnel mentioned as part of the board in that report do you?

There is a reason veterans get disability coverage, medical and dental; because when they are done, they are usually messed up somehow (at least in the Army) from jumping out of planes, shot, torn up from ruckmarches or whatever else.

Sad part is, everyone that wants to comment on what the military should recieve, by and large have never served. I didn't join to do 20 years, but I will finish 20 years and the contract I signed up under had the retirement benefits in place. Take those away, and the job offers I could have taken making 200k plus as a contractor a year if I had gotten out, is what I would have done.

You will see a large exodus of people in the future that join, that will just do 4 years, take the educational benefits, and get out. Just take a look at what happens to most West Point Officers.... get the education and contacts, serve 5 years, then move on to corporate America. Expect the same for the Enlisted.

People complain, but $1,500 a month is only $18,000 a year in retirement pay. One contractors paycheck of $150k a year could pay for 8 years of my retirement. Nancy Pelosi's renovated offices in some town she is hardly in ($250k, could pay for almost 15 years of my retirement). Add that to the continuous spending that our leaders put on things, or (this will be unpopular-stop unemployment checks from being paid for 99 weeks ----99 f'in weeks for someone that has not worked). I'm all about helping someone out.. but 99 f'in weeks?

And we want to cut pay for those that work and have helped secure this Nation.. amazing.

-------Our leaders using tax money wisely

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has more than quadrupled the rent on her San Francisco district office, making the $18,736-a-month cost of her new South of Market space the highest in the House, according to a new report.

The rent - part of Pelosi's budget, which is funded by taxpayers - is nearly double the next-highest rent in the House: Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pays $10,600 a month for his Manhattan office, while representatives from Sacramento, Boston and Los Angeles pay nearly that much, the report said.


-----Quote taken from financial news concerning jobless benefits:

Also, any additional extensions will cost big bucks, money that Washington, D.C., doesn't have at the moment. The federal government is expected to spend $156 billion on jobless benefits in fiscal 2010, which began Oct. 1

------

Yea, but lets put Military pay and benefits on the chopping block first.

[Shaps]

Addendum,
I feel this way about teachers, firemen, policemen, social service workers, nurses, EMT's and a few other professions.

-But yea a guy can get paid $80 mil for running a 4.4 40 yard dash. Meanwhile your kids teacher is eating ramen noodles at home and getting spat on in class by her kids, and we wonder why America is falling behind in education, standard of living, and economic power.

-At least we'll always have the monopoly on the entertainment industry.

[kookiegod]

There has been some talk of a Constitutional Convention and that could get interesting.

Term limits and a balanced budget amendment are the priorities.

Takes 3/4s of state legislatures to do it, but then they can do nearly anything.

I think it needs to be done, we need to shake up the system as the system is not working. The people of Libya went and shook up their own system, and God Bless them.

We need to do ours, but without RPGs.

[Rinualdo]

To those that think the "benefits are to good to be true", or equate any job where they drive to work and the worst they have to expect is maybe spilling their coffee on them, to the military is absurd.

If someone makes it through 20 years of Military service, has served in a combat zone, and more importantly actually been in combat (whatever their reason for joining), is NOTHING like normal people and their jobs.

To spend every day with their family, the option to do what they want when they want, to not have to put themselves physically or mentally through being shot at or shooting others. To equate the 401K business model to a typical 20 year pension paid at 65 is complete and utter crap from those that have never dealt with it.

-----From the article

The board members are from big businesses — experts, the Pentagon says, in executive management, corporate governance, audit and finance, human resources, economics, technology and health care.

------

Don't see Military personnel mentioned as part of the board in that report do you?

There is a reason veterans get disability coverage, medical and dental; because when they are done, they are usually messed up somehow (at least in the Army) from jumping out of planes, shot, torn up from ruckmarches or whatever else.

Sad part is, everyone that wants to comment on what the military should recieve, by and large have never served. I didn't join to do 20 years, but I will finish 20 years and the contract I signed up under had the retirement benefits in place. Take those away, and the job offers I could have taken making 200k plus as a contractor a year if I had gotten out, is what I would have done.

You will see a large exodus of people in the future that join, that will just do 4 years, take the educational benefits, and get out. Just take a look at what happens to most West Point Officers.... get the education and contacts, serve 5 years, then move on to corporate America. Expect the same for the Enlisted.

People complain, but $1,500 a month is only $18,000 a year in retirement pay. One contractors paycheck of $150k a year could pay for 8 years of my retirement. Nancy Pelosi's renovated offices in some town she is hardly in ($250k, could pay for almost 15 years of my retirement). Add that to the continuous spending that our leaders put on things, or (this will be unpopular-stop unemployment checks from being paid for 99 weeks ----99 f'in weeks for someone that has not worked). I'm all about helping someone out.. but 99 f'in weeks?

And we want to cut pay for those that work and have helped secure this Nation.. amazing.

-------Our leaders using tax money wisely

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has more than quadrupled the rent on her San Francisco district office, making the $18,736-a-month cost of her new South of Market space the highest in the House, according to a new report.

The rent - part of Pelosi's budget, which is funded by taxpayers - is nearly double the next-highest rent in the House: Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pays $10,600 a month for his Manhattan office, while representatives from Sacramento, Boston and Los Angeles pay nearly that much, the report said.


-----Quote taken from financial news concerning jobless benefits:

Also, any additional extensions will cost big bucks, money that Washington, D.C., doesn't have at the moment. The federal government is expected to spend $156 billion on jobless benefits in fiscal 2010, which began Oct. 1

------

Yea, but lets put Military pay and benefits on the chopping block first.

Unfortunately, this is a very narrow and inaccurate view. When looking at military budgetary items, particularly retirement benefits, you can't focus on the current worldwide military landscape. Unless you assume that the US military will always be at war and will always have troops in a combat zone.

I also challenge your notion that most military personnel have served in a combat zone or will see combat service. Of the 1.5 million military personnel and 1 million or so reservists, we have the second largest military in the world and spend ~5% of our GDP. Are you really suggesting that a majority of those nearly 2.5 million people are or have been in Iraq/Afghanistan?
A good portion of those in the Army or Marines may have had combat tours, but certainly not a majority of the Navy or Coast Guard.

There is a strong case to make that the average police officer or border patrol agent encounters more dangerous situations more often then the average military person.

Military pay isn't on the chopping block "first". Its one of several concurrent costs being considered. Considering our DoD budget is the third biggest expenditure, it seems an appropriate place to look for cost savings.

You're also failing to account the age discrepancy for other retirement plans and failing to consider that most people join the military at 18-22. With a basic 20, retiring at 40 seems rather absurd when most military retirees get secondary jobs. You're not condemning these people to a life of poverty after service.


People keep talking about a supposed mass exodus of senior military members who will leave if you change the way retirement is paid, but I thought people joined to serve their country? Let me ask this: At what point do benefits become so generous that you are no longer employing military members and instead are hiring mercenaries?

[Rinualdo]

I'm going to blow up the Internet right now.... because I am going to agree with Rinualdo.


This needs to go in the things that blew your mind thread.



Rinauldo. You.

Care to elaborate on your diatribe? Or do you think anyone who ever mentions anything about the military and funding should be labeled a communist? Should we double all military benefits no matter what the cost is?

[Lord Orbstar]

No. You are just a dumbass with no real grasp of the issue. It is a waste of time to discuss it with you on a text game internet forum. You are what you are and I won't change it. I am just glad that people with your thought process are an extreme minority.

Now, in game your character may be cool as Hell and we can hunt and roleplay, but on this issue if you bent just a little further to the left you will be able to reach and kiss my ass.

"thoughtful" and "reasoned" discussion on this forum will not change your world-view. Perhaps a tour of duty would. THe men and women in jobs and services outside of the infantry all do a vital service. It does not matter if you are patrolling the Indian Ocean or patrolling Faryab province, Afghanistan. We are all the sword and shield of the United States.

And yes, I am an Armor Officer in an Infantry Battalion with 4 tours: 2 stateside wussy missions and 2 OCONUS. I still appreciate the fags in the Coast Guard and Air Force (even as I call them fags) and did my first four years in the USN in a light bomber squadron. We are all one team which is something everyone that brays about "combat" being a prerequisite for a 20 year retirement misses.

Join the armed forces and learn about teamwork, mission, duty, honor and other values that are missing in your life. Then come back and we can agree or disagree over a beer or Glenlivit. Until then, fuck you.


Damnit...i wasnt going to say all that. oh well. You win.

[kgolfer]

Last time I checked almost anyone could join the military.......

If 20 years in the military is so easy for such a huge, unreasonable payoff at the end, why don't more people join and stay 20 years?

Also, for everyone against this, please voice how much service YOU did or are doing right now?

Personally, 23 years active Army retiring in 8 months with more than 2 years deployed in combat, and way over 2 years away from my family.

Would I do it again all over if I could in today's military......

No, and no. It is not worth it in the slightest.

[Rinualdo]

No. You are just a dumbass with no real grasp of the issue. It is a waste of time to discuss it with you on a text game internet forum. You are what you are and I won't change it. I am just glad that people with your thought process are an extreme minority.

Now, in game your character may be cool as Hell and we can hunt and roleplay, but on this issue if you bent just a little further to the left you will be able to reach and kiss my ass.

"thoughtful" and "reasoned" discussion on this forum will not change your world-view. Perhaps a tour of duty would. THe men and women in jobs and services outside of the infantry all do a vital service. It does not matter if you are patrolling the Indian Ocean or patrolling Faryab province, Afghanistan. We are all the sword and shield of the United States.

And yes, I am an Armor Officer in an Infantry Battalion with 4 tours: 2 stateside wussy missions and 2 OCONUS. I still appreciate the fags in the Coast Guard and Air Force (even as I call them fags) and did my first four years in the USN in a light bomber squadron. We are all one team which is something everyone that brays about "combat" being a prerequisite for a 20 year retirement misses.

Join the armed forces and learn about teamwork, mission, duty, honor and other values that are missing in your life. Then come back and we can agree or disagree over a beer or Glenlivit. Until then, fuck you.


Damnit...i wasnt going to say all that. oh well. You win.

Wow. Its awesome you can discern all the things missing from my life and what is wrong with me for asking at what point do our military benefits become too generous.

That's quite a skill to have. Perhaps you don't need a military pension and can use that skill when you get out.

[Rinualdo]

Last time I checked almost anyone could join the military.......

If 20 years in the military is so easy for such a huge, unreasonable payoff at the end, why don't more people join and stay 20 years?

Also, for everyone against this, please voice how much service YOU did or are doing right now?

Personally, 23 years active Army retiring in 8 months with more than 2 years deployed in combat, and way over 2 years away from my family.

Would I do it again all over if I could in today's military......

No, and no. It is not worth it in the slightest.

I certainly don't think you have to serve in the military to discuss its budget or benefits. Do I have to be a police officer to say we need more of them? Do I have to be a teacher to say they are underfunded?

That being said, I joined the military in the 90's, spent over a decade as an intelligence officer, did several deployments and one combat tour to the middle east, have 2 confirmed kills from an ambush and a bronze star.

I continue to work with the military as a contractor working on intelligence systems that also includes travel on military deployments to install, support, etc.

[AnticorRifling]

Join the armed forces and learn about teamwork, mission, duty, honor and other values that are missing in your life. Then come back and we can agree or disagree over a beer or Glenlivit. Until then, fuck you.



LOL

[kgolfer]

Over a decade and didn't stay to retirement?

Maybe it is to hard to stay to 20 years, or you are just a pussy!

Oh, and btw, traditionally why someone starts to talk all the BS you just did, they are talking out their ass.

[kgolfer]

LOL @ bronze star WITHOUT V device for all you did......like the new ARCOM for combat......

[Fallen]

Let me ask this: At what point do benefits become so generous that you are no longer employing military members and instead are hiring mercenaries?

When you start working for Blackwater, or whatever they are calling themselves these days.

[Lord Orbstar]

Well then, providing you are not lying, you sure missed the point when you were in. ten years? hmm what replaced asas-l?

[Lord Orbstar]

When you start working for Blackwater, or whatever they are calling themselves these days.


Ditto.

[waywardgs]

What does teamwork, duty, mission and honor have to do with an opinion on bloated military spending?

[Tgo01]

People keep talking about a supposed mass exodus of senior military members who will leave if you change the way retirement is paid, but I thought people joined to serve their country?

Wanting good pay/benefits can't be part of their reason for wanting to join also? Like all members of Congress really join because they give a shit about the people who voted them in.

[Lord Orbstar]

What does teamwork, duty, mission and honor have to do with an opinion on bloated military spending?

Nothing at all. What he/they may gain is an understanding of the system and sub issues beyond a pure accountants view of the numbers (eg combat is not nor should be in the retirement issue at all and the personal/familial sacrifices that comes in twenty years of service).

Fair question fairly answered.

[Latrinsorm]

There has been some talk of a Constitutional Convention and that could get interesting.

Term limits and a balanced budget amendment are the priorities.

Takes 3/4s of state legislatures to do it, but then they can do nearly anything.

I think it needs to be done, we need to shake up the system as the system is not working. The people of Libya went and shook up their own system, and God Bless them.

We need to do ours, but without RPGs.How do you think term limits will solve any problem?

[Fallen]

I've never heard the term "Career Politician" used in a favorable light.

[Latrinsorm]

I've never heard the term "Career Politician" used in a favorable light.Ok. Why? What specific problems that being a career politician entails will be solved by term limits? Do we lose any of the specific benefits of career politicians, and is the aggregate a net gain or net loss?

[Warriorbird]

Term limits =

http://www.minnpost.com/_asset/q31xgp/mp_main_wide/Medvedev_Putin.jpg

[Fallen]

Ok. Why? What specific problems that being a career politician entails will be solved by term limits? Do we lose any of the specific benefits of career politicians, and is the aggregate a net gain or net loss?

Less chance for continuing corruption. Having to buy a new politician every couple of years increases the chances of being caught. Less money/hoopla being wrapped up in every race. Less advantage for the encumbant being basically unbeatable unless he is caught red handed in some scandal. Less opportunity for those lobbying congress to gain strong sway over a specific politician, etc.

[Androidpk]

Ok. Why? What specific problems that being a career politician entails will be solved by term limits? Do we lose any of the specific benefits of career politicians, and is the aggregate a net gain or net loss?

Are you always stupid or are you just pretending?

[Delias]

I guess I'm in the middle here- I do believe our military budget is a bit bloated, but I also believe that those men and women EARN their pensions... if you want to make cuts, do so in some of the R&D projects that are going to be scrapped in a decade or so after two trillion dollars are spent realizing that it's impractical to make mini nukes that can be dropped by guys with jetpacks.

[Latrinsorm]

Less chance for continuing corruption.Is new corruption substantially better than continuing corruption?
Having to buy a new politician every couple of years increases the chances of being caught.Point.
Less money/hoopla being wrapped up in every race. Less advantage for the encumbant being basically unbeatable unless he is caught red handed in some scandal.Aren't these contradictory? An incumbent barely has to campaign at all in most cases, new people would have to put much more effort into campaigning.
Less opportunity for those lobbying congress to gain strong sway over a specific politician, etc.I disagree. A politician who knows he probably has a lifetime career is more secure than a politician who knows he has at most 4-6 years before he has to go get a real job. Why bother being corrupt? Some people will be anyway, yes, but by definition those people would with term limits too. Term limits would only serve to further incentivize this sort of corruption.

Now, what do we lose? Is experience useful in politics? Continuity? If a specific person is better than average, won't term limits on average generate an inferior successor? Rather than blanket term limits, shouldn't we come up with a way of better identifying corrupt vs. better politicians? Surgery rather than amputation, if you will.
Are you always stupid or are you just pretending?I'm always stupid, even when I'm smart.

[Parkbandit]

Are you always stupid or are you just pretending?

He's not pretending.

[Fallen]

Now, what do we lose? Is experience useful in politics? Continuity? If a specific person is better than average, won't term limits on average generate an inferior successor? Rather than blanket term limits, shouldn't we come up with a way of better identifying corrupt vs. better politicians? Surgery rather than amputation, if you will.I'm always stupid, even when I'm smart.

"Doing stuff better" doesn't sound like much of a solution to me. Once people get into senior positions in committies they can basically dominate politics in that area for decades at a time. I'm fine with there being 4 term limit. That should allow for all of the "experience" a politician could ever require.

[TheEschaton]

I love how Orbstar was all like "If you were ever in the military, Rinauldo, you'd know what's up and why you're so wrong!!!!11one!!"

Rinauldo, "Uh, I was in the military."

Orbstar, "WELL< OBVIOUSLY YOU DIDN"T LEARN WHAT YOU NEEDED TO KNOW!"

As if everyone who was ever in the military has to conform to the same point. John Kerry was in the military and is now rather liberal. The problem is, the military puts a lot of stock in everyone conforming to one mindset, and it's generally a very protective, isolated, "us vs. them" mentality, which, in this debate, is somehow equating the desire to trim budgets as an attack on the armed forces and their worth.

[Tgo01]

Do we really want a bunch of freshman in Congress every few years? I can't think of an instance where it's wise to tell someone with experience and knowledge that they have to go to make room for someone with little to no experience or knowledge of the job just because.

I think it should be easier for Congress to get rid of their corrupt members when their voters are too stupid to vote them out though. On that same note it should be easier for Congress to get rid of senile members as well (hint hint Guam capsize guy.)

[Delias]

Do we really want a bunch of freshman in Congress every few years? I can't think of an instance where it's wise to tell someone with experience and knowledge that they have to go to make room for someone with little to no experience or knowledge of the job just because.

I think it should be easier for Congress to get rid of their corrupt members when their voters are too stupid to vote them out though. On that same note it should be easier for Congress to get rid of senile members as well (hint hint Guam capsize guy.)

Not all experience is good... and most of the people running for the house and the senate have had time to build a knowledge base (remember the age requirements) that ought to enable them to do their job just fine.

Then again, there is the tendency of old people (you know, like the ancient ones who have served a hundred and seventy six terms) to reject new ideas simply because they are unfamiliar.

Sorry, I lost my train of though, I just can't watch TMNT and talk politics at the same time. All I can think of is delivering a snarky one liner and ninja chopping you into unconsciousness.

[Tgo01]

Sorry, I lost my train of though, I just can't watch TMNT and talk politics at the same time. All I can think of is delivering a snarky one liner and ninja chopping you into unconsciousness.

It's okay Delias, I really don't expect much more from you.

[Androidpk]

Do we really want a bunch of freshman in Congress every few years?

Don't be scared of change, be scared of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA

[Tgo01]

Don't be scared of change, be scared of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA

Yup, I addressed that guy specifically in my second paragraph.

[Ardwen]

If you want congress to get rid of the corrupt members, we're basically going to be electing new members constantly. The level of favoritism, partisanship and self serving special interest gerrymandering in most political offices is almost like a bad comedy. Each district rewards the senator or whatever for doing best for that area, the system rewards politicians that get the largest benefits for the home area. In some ways the best thing to do would be to have districts elect officials for other undisclosed places, much harder to pander to special interests then.

[Delias]

They didn't say they'd be there in half an hour, because they displayed turtle power.

[Latrinsorm]

"Doing stuff better" doesn't sound like much of a solution to me. Once people get into senior positions in committies they can basically dominate politics in that area for decades at a time. I'm fine with there being 4 term limit. That should allow for all of the "experience" a politician could ever require.Is dominating politics bad, or is it only bad if the dominator is bad? No one would argue that FDR didn't dominate the political landscape, but who cares? He brought us out of the Great Depression and won World War II. If you asked if kicking him out after two terms would have been a good thing, isn't the only possible answer "maybe"? Maybe the next guy would have averted the Cold War, or maybe we'd all be speaking German.

Term limits just aren't the only way to get rid of bad politicians, and they necessarily get rid of good politicians too. Doesn't it strike you as a crude, clumsy way of getting what you want?

As an aside, why does Google chrome's spell check suggest dominator should be changed to dominatrix?

[Warriorbird]

They didn't say they'd be there in half an hour, because they displayed turtle power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFsTr0kGAqU

[Shaps]

------From Rinauldo's Post-----------
Unfortunately, this is a very narrow and inaccurate view. When looking at military budgetary items, particularly retirement benefits, you can't focus on the current worldwide military landscape. Unless you assume that the US military will always be at war and will always have troops in a combat zone.

I also challenge your notion that most military personnel have served in a combat zone or will see combat service. Of the 1.5 million military personnel and 1 million or so reservists, we have the second largest military in the world and spend ~5% of our GDP. Are you really suggesting that a majority of those nearly 2.5 million people are or have been in Iraq/Afghanistan?
A good portion of those in the Army or Marines may have had combat tours, but certainly not a majority of the Navy or Coast Guard.

There is a strong case to make that the average police officer or border patrol agent encounters more dangerous situations more often then the average military person.

Military pay isn't on the chopping block "first". Its one of several concurrent costs being considered. Considering our DoD budget is the third biggest expenditure, it seems an appropriate place to look for cost savings.

You're also failing to account the age discrepancy for other retirement plans and failing to consider that most people join the military at 18-22. With a basic 20, retiring at 40 seems rather absurd when most military retirees get secondary jobs. You're not condemning these people to a life of poverty after service.


People keep talking about a supposed mass exodus of senior military members who will leave if you change the way retirement is paid, but I thought people joined to serve their country? Let me ask this: At what point do benefits become so generous that you are no longer employing military members and instead are hiring mercenaries?

------------From a later Rinauldo post----------

I certainly don't think you have to serve in the military to discuss its budget or benefits. Do I have to be a police officer to say we need more of them? Do I have to be a teacher to say they are underfunded?

That being said, I joined the military in the 90's, spent over a decade as an intelligence officer, did several deployments and one combat tour to the middle east, have 2 confirmed kills from an ambush and a bronze star.

I continue to work with the military as a contractor working on intelligence systems that also includes travel on military deployments to install, support, etc

------------My Comments-----------

Rinauldo,
You sound pretty intelligent in your writing, but let me make some points, by para.
1. We will always have troops in a combat zone, training for combat, or deployed to some other back water country doing unmentionables. A narrow view is to think we won't have troops in harms way. Part of what happened with the 90's downsizing and then 2 wars springing up.

2. The Navy and Coast Guard serve different functions, and they may not be serving in a specificied combat zone in the Middle East, but between border security and numerous other activities they provide security for our Nation. Has everyone seen real combat, no... but does every person have the chance to be sent to do it, yes... A guy working at AT&T doesn't have to sweat it.

3. Is my follow up post I addressed the issue of other professions outside the military, and think they should get better benefits also.

4. To even bring up the discussion, focused primarily on what individual Soldiers recieve is absurd, when there is never any outrage over the Billion dollar scrapped projects that get pushed by Congress and the higher ups to Corporations just for profit.

5. Show me how many actual Soldiers come in at 18 and get out at 38. Those are small %'s. They are not condemmed to a life of poverty, but entering a civilian work force without a specialized skill set that is used by normal companies (Not the contracting job you got, doing the same thing you were doing in the Military, just getting paid 6 figures now instead-once again due to pushing money to Corporations) is very difficult for a 40-50 year old competing against 20 somethings right out of college.

6. My last point takes your last words from the first post, and then what you said in your second... To even insinuate what I do in the Military is solely for the benefits like a mercenary is offensive. I do, and many others, sacrifice and join out of love of country, and that sacrifice should not be ignored by the other 99.5% of the population that choose not to serve. Yes it is a choice that we make, but a harder one to actually fulfill to 20 years.

You are the mercenary. There is a reason you didn't make it to 20 years. Because you saw there was more money, less work, less restrictions, less oversight by joining a contracting company. So you are just the type of person I am talking about. An exodus of mid level NCO's and Officers that realize they can make more money on the outside. I respect those that choose to continue to serve in a contracting job and am happy they found work, but never.. ever.. if you did not make it to 20 and bailed out early to cash in, should you talk about what 20 year vets get. Enjoy your 200k a year for the next 5 years. That would cover my full retirement from 40-80.

Makes me sick people would even question "hiring mercenaries", when all in all, that is what you became (doing a job solely for financial benefit) - If you were medically discharged then I take this statement back of course.

-More odd is you did not address any of the issues that I tossed out concerning our Leaders and how they spend millions on frivilous things, yet paying a guy 20k a year of retirement is absurd somehow.

[TheEschaton]

So because he left to make money, his opinion is less valid? Isn't that just the American way, which you fought so hard to defend? Isn't it what you're trying to defend in saying you shouldn't cut the pensions and 401ks of soldiers?

/sarcasm

[Shaps]

So because he left to make money, his opinion is less valid? Isn't that just the American way, which you fought so hard to defend? Isn't it what you're trying to defend in saying you shouldn't cut the pensions and 401ks of soldiers?

-Whatever anyone choses to do, is their choice and I wish well upon everyone. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to express it. Everyone has the option to join the Military and recieve the benefits... just one caveat, make it to 20 years.

I was countering the arguments he made. Not saying he shouldn't express those arguments. I just happen to disagree with his viewpoint.

The mercenary comments though, yea.. I don't think he has any stance to cast stones, considering he got out to "make money".

[TheEschaton]

His comments about mercenaries was to ask the question when is pay too much for a soldier, and thus entitled to being cut, since the people on the other side of the argument seem to arguing a hardline position that they can never be cut.

[Tgo01]

His comments about mercenaries was to ask the question when is pay too much for a soldier, and thus entitled to being cut, since the people on the other side of the argument seem to arguing a hardline position that they can never be cut.

They can cut them, just as long as they cut most/all other government employees pensions first.

[Rinualdo]

Over a decade and didn't stay to retirement?

Maybe it is to hard to stay to 20 years, or you are just a pussy!

Oh, and btw, traditionally why someone starts to talk all the BS you just did, they are talking out their ass.

I'm a pussy. Rgr. Care to tell me which point I made was bs?


LOL @ bronze star WITHOUT V device for all you did......like the new ARCOM for combat......

I don't recall mentioning what devices I did or didn't have.


Well then, providing you are not lying, you sure missed the point when you were in. ten years? hmm what replaced asas-l?

The point was that you should never question the military budet and personal costs? I must have missed that lesson at OCS.


Wanting good pay/benefits can't be part of their reason for wanting to join also? Like all members of Congress really join because they give a shit about the people who voted them in.

That certainly can be a reason. I would argue that it should not be the primary reason.
I would further argue that the plan discussed would give people of any service length the building blocks for retirement and not forcing some arbitrary number as the end goal.



------------My Comments-----------

Rinauldo,
You sound pretty intelligent in your writing, but let me make some points, by para.
1. We will always have troops in a combat zone, training for combat, or deployed to some other back water country doing unmentionables. A narrow view is to think we won't have troops in harms way. Part of what happened with the 90's downsizing and then 2 wars springing up.

2. The Navy and Coast Guard serve different functions, and they may not be serving in a specificied combat zone in the Middle East, but between border security and numerous other activities they provide security for our Nation. Has everyone seen real combat, no... but does every person have the chance to be sent to do it, yes... A guy working at AT&T doesn't have to sweat it.

3. Is my follow up post I addressed the issue of other professions outside the military, and think they should get better benefits also.

4. To even bring up the discussion, focused primarily on what individual Soldiers recieve is absurd, when there is never any outrage over the Billion dollar scrapped projects that get pushed by Congress and the higher ups to Corporations just for profit.

5. Show me how many actual Soldiers come in at 18 and get out at 38. Those are small %'s. They are not condemmed to a life of poverty, but entering a civilian work force without a specialized skill set that is used by normal companies (Not the contracting job you got, doing the same thing you were doing in the Military, just getting paid 6 figures now instead-once again due to pushing money to Corporations) is very difficult for a 40-50 year old competing against 20 somethings right out of college.

6. My last point takes your last words from the first post, and then what you said in your second... To even insinuate what I do in the Military is solely for the benefits like a mercenary is offensive. I do, and many others, sacrifice and join out of love of country, and that sacrifice should not be ignored by the other 99.5% of the population that choose not to serve. Yes it is a choice that we make, but a harder one to actually fulfill to 20 years.

You are the mercenary. There is a reason you didn't make it to 20 years. Because you saw there was more money, less work, less restrictions, less oversight by joining a contracting company. So you are just the type of person I am talking about. An exodus of mid level NCO's and Officers that realize they can make more money on the outside. I respect those that choose to continue to serve in a contracting job and am happy they found work, but never.. ever.. if you did not make it to 20 and bailed out early to cash in, should you talk about what 20 year vets get. Enjoy your 200k a year for the next 5 years. That would cover my full retirement from 40-80.

Makes me sick people would even question "hiring mercenaries", when all in all, that is what you became (doing a job solely for financial benefit) - If you were medically discharged then I take this statement back of course.

-More odd is you did not address any of the issues that I tossed out concerning our Leaders and how they spend millions on frivilous things, yet paying a guy 20k a year of retirement is absurd somehow.

1. You are missing the context. Although we may always have troops in an area we designate a combat zone, this period of our military history is rather out of the ordinary. Not since WWII have this many troops served in combat. That number, according to the current military plan, is about to dwindle significantly. The issue at hand is military pensions not just for today's troops, but for all future troops. You're arguing for military pension for all, not just those who are or have been deployed in combat. That would be a different argument entirely.

2. I am not advocating that we structure military retirement to be like AT&T. I'm advocating that what we have those in our workforce who see danger far more often that lack most of the military benefits and the same pension structure. For those who champion the belief of "if you serve your country and see danger, you should get paid", why is there not a cry to change the FBI, DEA, CIA, etc... to a 50%+ pension system after 20 years.

3. So where does the money come to pay those people better?

4. There most certainly is an outrage. Have you been following politics at all for the last 18 months?
What I fail to understand is why you continue to perpetuate the view of "yea, but". Just because there is waste in one area does not mean you have to solve that area before you look at adjusting a budget in another. You'll get no argument that there is a multitude of areans that should be tackled. In this case, military retirement and benefits is a significant cost burden on the DoD budget.

5. I said 18-20, which is when most people join. After highschool. I believe you find most people and employers would prefer someone with 20 years experience in a particular field, especially leadership experience, to be much more valuable then a 20something out of college.

6. I didn't insinuate you were a mercenary. I asked a question about when are benefits generous enough and when is the crossover that people join more for the financial benefit and less for the service to their country.

I've seen you, on a couple occasions, point out that I left the military merely to make money. As others have pointed out, you fail to provide a reason why that is either a bad thing or why it somehow negates my position or argument.

More to the point, however. Can you please provide where, exactly, I said this was the reason I left military service?

To your last point. I did address it. Our leaders wasting millions should be addressed. So should military benefits. These two things are not mutually exclusive and can occur independently of one another. As to your crude example, paying one person 20k a year isn't a big deal. Paying the thousands that retire each year 20k a year for the next 40-60 years on top of their healthcare costs for themselves and family members, then other VA benefits like education, guaranteed home loans, etc... is fiscally significant.


So because he left to make money, his opinion is less valid? Isn't that just the American way, which you fought so hard to defend? Isn't it what you're trying to defend in saying you shouldn't cut the pensions and 401ks of soldiers?

-Whatever anyone choses to do, is their choice and I wish well upon everyone. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to express it. Everyone has the option to join the Military and recieve the benefits... just one caveat, make it to 20 years.

I was countering the arguments he made. Not saying he shouldn't express those arguments. I just happen to disagree with his viewpoint.

The mercenary comments though, yea.. I don't think he has any stance to cast stones, considering he got out to "make money".

So wait, first my opinion was invalid because I didn't have military experience, now its invalid because I don't have 20 years experience? If I did 20 would it be invalid because I only did one combat tour or because I didn't do 30 years?

Again, please clarify where I said I got out to make money.


His comments about mercenaries was to ask the question when is pay too much for a soldier, and thus entitled to being cut, since the people on the other side of the argument seem to arguing a hardline position that they can never be cut.

Pay on top of all the other benefits. Exactly. I don't think people realize just how expensive each military member is.

[Shaps]

Rinualdo-

1. The number of troops is about to dwindle, but the notion to implement this plan on those that have served throughout this period, is absurd. If they put into effect a grandfather clause stating all those that have joined after said date, this is what to expect from your service, then fine. To change it on those that have gone through these wars is just wrong. Also, I am not arguing for military pensions for all, only those that make it to 20 years. The proposed plan is offering pensions to all (retirement plans, whatever you want to call it).

Also, when the next large conflict happens, and the DoD rushes to fill numbers, it will tell the tale. Just like after every conflict.

2. I have in all my posts advocated (just not listed) that other professions that serve in high risk environments in our Nations defense or service be better rewarded.

3. There are a ton of social programs that we could scale back on to afford paying productive wage earners. I could walk out my door today and find a job, granted making like $6 an hour, but I could find one. People pulling 99 weeks of unemployment is a drain on all of us.

4. To think that retirement packages for those that serve 20 years is a financial "waste in one area" or "cost burden on the DoD budget" is.. well, honestly just no response to this one. I suppose the burden those that serve 20 have carried is just a waste as well.

5. My point was, show me how many of those 18-20 yr. olds make it to 20 years to recieve the benefits? And I'm not sure about your perception of other markets or job arenas, but my experience is that most businesses do not want a 45 year old with a family to just start working for them. Possibly in the Officer world it is, but the Enlisted world I would contend it is much harder.

6. I contend that if the benefits were so outrageous, more than 17% of those that serve would make it to 20 years.

7. I did point out that you left the military, and are now serving as a contractor, and I know what contractors make. Unless you are crazy and didn't get the right deal for yourself. I also stated that it is a persons choice what they do, I wish everyone well in that endeavour, and am glad that those that serve and get out are able to find work. I also stipulated if there were alternate reasons for you leaving the military (ie. medical discharge), then I take it back. At no point did you say why you left, nor do I expect you to.. but, for an Officer with over 10 years service, without explanation why, now serving as a contractor, making much more money.. well.. that was definetly a contributing factor.

The final comments of "I don't think people realize how expensive each Military member is" is again, in my opinion, faulty logic. Yes it is expensive to support a Soldier. I would once more contend (because the number of people that serve voluntarily and even less that serve 20 years), that the majority of Americans could not, would not, or do not want to serve as Soldiers have chosen to.

Walk up to someone on the street and ask them to give some of their freedoms away, leave their family for a year, do what they are told each and every moment of the day, take responsibility for yourself and those underneath you, walk into a combat zone and let someone shoot at you. You know what they would want? $150k. IE. Contractors.

If our country can't even afford to pay and provide for those that provide in it's defense, then we are are truly on the downslide.

-All my opinion of course

[AnticorRifling]

Walk up to someone on the street and ask them to give some of their freedoms away, leave their family for a year, do what they are told each and every moment of the day, take responsibility for yourself and those underneath you, walk into a combat zone and let someone shoot at you. You know what they would want? $150k. IE. Contractors.



Now take the same exact scenario only instead of asking them they decided to do those things of their own free will for whatever reason was valid or important to them.

It's not, to me, a valid comparison.

[Stanley Burrell]

Shit has to come full circle and give reciprocity to late fourties+

And that's the bottom line because stone cold S.B. said so. 3:16.

[AnticorRifling]

The man smokes a pipe and has a moustache of the gods, it is kind of hard to refute his logic.

[Stanley Burrell]

I refute that. To divide by zero.

[Jack]

So because he left to make money, his opinion is less valid? Isn't that just the American way, which you fought so hard to defend? Isn't it what you're trying to defend in saying you shouldn't cut the pensions and 401ks of soldiers?

/sarcasm

Is is opinion less valid, maybe. It is definitely hypocrical, assuming he is doing the exact same job he did in the military, working along side active duty personel, and getting paid three to four times as much. Before cutting into military pay and benifits, I think we should look at redundant government contracts and eliminate them. That would save more money I'd think.

[Cyprion]

I wish I was making 3-4x as much as the military folks I work with. Sadly that is not true, unless we are talking about in a combat zone, maybe. When I got out after 4 years as E-4, I needed to make around 45-50k to break even. I couldn't imagine making 3x that.

E-7 20 years with dependants Make roughly 70k a year when you factor in housing and food allowance. Add another nearly 10k if you want to count the free family medical insurance. Just because this military member claims 40-50k on taxes, thats not what they actually make.

I believe military members should be payed well, what I don't believe in, is that someone working the register at the chow hall should be making the same as some doing intelligence or linguistics.

You want to cut spending, don't give that pension check until they are actually retired and not working. Many many many people here retire Friday and magically return as a GS-12 on Monday, pulling in 2 checks.

[AnticorRifling]

45-50k to break even compared to an E-4?!

[Fallen]

I wish I was making 50k as an E-4, heh. If you count having to live in the barracks as a "perk" perhaps yours were a hell of a lot nicer than mine. Nothing like monthly white glove inspections.

[AnticorRifling]

I wish I was making 50k as an E-4, heh. If you count having to live in the barracks as a "perk" perhaps yours were a hell of a lot nicer than mine. Nothing like monthly white glove inspections.

Monthly?!

Every Friday morning. Although in a sick way Field Day on Thursday nights was kind of fun.

[Jack]

Thursday night field day was only fun if you were three quarters of the way hammered and running the buffer in the hallway.....

[Fallen]

If I had to do weekly inspections I would just live outside the barracks in a tent and seal off the room. Oh wait, that's just FTX all over again.

[AnticorRifling]

Thursday night field day was only fun if you were three quarters of the way hammered and running the buffer in the hallway.....

How else do you do field day? Buffer rodeo all up in this bitch.

[crb]

Is dominating politics bad, or is it only bad if the dominator is bad? No one would argue that FDR didn't dominate the political landscape, but who cares? He brought us out of the Great Depression and won World War II. If you asked if kicking him out after two terms would have been a good thing, isn't the only possible answer "maybe"? Maybe the next guy would have averted the Cold War, or maybe we'd all be speaking German.

Term limits just aren't the only way to get rid of bad politicians, and they necessarily get rid of good politicians too. Doesn't it strike you as a crude, clumsy way of getting what you want?

As an aside, why does Google chrome's spell check suggest dominator should be changed to dominatrix?

FDR did win world war II, partially, gotta give Churchill and Truman and even Stalin some credit. But it was WW2 that got us out of the depression which FDRs failed policied dragged out. Crediting FDR with getting us out of the depression would be like crediting Obama for getting us out of this recession if it lasts 7 more years, he is still in office, and it doesn't really end until the biggest military mobilization the world has ever seen takes place and his initial policies are dialed back.

[Cephalopod]

...the depression which FDRs failed policied dragged out.

http://plus4chan.org/b/a/src/130033706920.jpg

[Rinualdo]

45-50k to break even compared to an E-4?!

If you did a true cost comparison between a military member and civilian, you'd see you would have to have a pretty significant jump in civilian pay to be at the same financial situation you were previously at.

Although I would argue, for the most part, base pay is fairly low for military members, when you start adding in BAH, BAS, etc... it can add up. When you start considering that most pays are untaxable and then combine with a combat zone tax exemption and hazardous duty pay, sea duty, flight deck pay, etc... that are available to some service members, its not a financially bad living.
When you combine that with what the civilian cost of complete and total health care for you and your family and less used benefits like life insurance, I could easily see needing 50k gross to equal what he was getting at E-4.

BAH alone with dependents can almost double some people's base pay. If they were overseas, definitely.

[Lemons]

...and hazardous duty pay, sea duty, flight deck pay, etc...

One of the first things I learned in the military was if you were getting payed extra for something, it never was enough for what you were doing.
"Oh hey, this month you are going to be cut off from all contact with the outside world, and little things like fresh air and sunlight, but we'll give you an extra 75 bucks!"
Or
"Have some hazardous duty pay. Hope you don't get your ass shot or blown up."

-c

[kgolfer]

Money paid will never equal the time lost overseas away from my family. It is paltry in comparison.

[AnticorRifling]

If you did a true cost comparison between a military member and civilian, you'd see you would have to have a pretty significant jump in civilian pay to be at the same financial situation you were previously at.

Although I would argue, for the most part, base pay is fairly low for military members, when you start adding in BAH, BAS, etc... it can add up. When you start considering that most pays are untaxable and then combine with a combat zone tax exemption and hazardous duty pay, sea duty, flight deck pay, etc... that are available to some service members, its not a financially bad living.
When you combine that with what the civilian cost of complete and total health care for you and your family and less used benefits like life insurance, I could easily see needing 50k gross to equal what he was getting at E-4.

BAH alone with dependents can almost double some people's base pay. If they were overseas, definitely.

Yeah I got me that sexy base pay. Granted I was happy has hell, I didn't pay rent, I got free chow, I had a gym available at no cost, life was AWESOME. No BAH, no BAS, hazardous duty pay for a very limited time and a few instances of per diem when I was TAD helping another comm. shop get their shit straight.

[Ardwen]

I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that being in the military isn't a 9 to 5 job, especially when in a combat zone or whatnot, if I was working the hours they were working and getting paid hourly I'd be getting a hell of a lot more then they do even at command levels. The few times I am stuck covering folks or helping overnight system repairs I get four to five times my base pay, which I assure you is much more then any soldier exposed to combat is getting.

[AnticorRifling]

I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that being in the military isn't a 9 to 5 job, especially when in a combat zone or whatnot, if I was working the hours they were working and getting paid hourly I'd be getting a hell of a lot more then they do even at command levels. The few times I am stuck covering folks or helping overnight system repairs I get four to five times my base pay, which I assure you is much more then any soldier exposed to combat is getting.

Truth.

I'm not hourly but if I were to convert what I make now to an hourly wage and then go time and a half for OT and apply that to any over 10 hour days I had in the Corps I would have been ROLLING in cash.

[Lord Orbstar]

How else do you do field day? Buffer rodeo all up in this bitch.

Fuck yes. i took a weird pride in how clean my section of the corridor was clean and how spotless my room was for inspection. It was recognized by multiple passes for "winning" the inspection. That was when i was in the navy as a junior EM.

I carried that over and even as a captain now my S2 & S6 shops are clean and waxed. And yes I help...it is a team building thing and develops espirit de corps.


On the subject though, pay can get generous at the end of a 20 plus career,but it was earned through sacrifice. I have an eight year old and twelve year old. I have been deplyed four years plus train ups during their life and am ramping for a fifth. It isnt fair fair them an is getting almost impossible to do emotionally.

That retirement I get (at age 62 since I am a reservist) wil be a thank you for my service and well earned.

[Rinualdo]

I'm not suggesting military life is cake and that it doesn't include sacrifice.

Anecdotally, when I was deployed I worked some pretty ridiculous hours. After deployments, I worked some cake hours as well.

I wish I got paid time and a half now. Of course this is specific to me and my job, but I probably work as many hours now on a per year basis as I did when I was in the service. If not equal, it would be damn close.

I also didn't start out at 30 paid vacation days a year nor do I get as many holidays and pre-holiday days off.

Of course, I no longer have to do a PRT, so that's pretty fucking sweet.