WTF is happening in Congress . . .

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by NorCal, Aug 11, 2011.

Loading...
  1. NorCal

    NorCal Active Member

    I heard a bunch of noise regarding a comment made either in congress or by a congressmen who stated military retirement is a form of charity or a handout.

    Congressional benefits include free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days. And Congress has the nerve to call a Military retirement an ENTITLEMENT.

    Does anyone know who the moron is that made this comment?
     
  2. AUTiger00

    AUTiger00 New Member

    While I don't know who said it and agree with you that it was an ignorant comment, by definition a military retirement/ pension is an entitlement.
     
  3. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Whoever said that, whether Dem or Rep, should be more concerned with cutting the entitlements to oil companies, for example. To call military retirements a form of charity is just plain wrong. You can't wrap yourself around the soldiers when convenient, send them into to war, then try to cut their benefits. I don't like it, and I am sure many/most Americans don't like it.

    This does anger me. Thought I didn't serve, My father served as a Tank Driver in Germany (Army), and I had three uncles (his brothers) serve/see combat in Korea.

    Abner
     
  4. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    At the same time, is it really necessary to start making monthly retirement payments to an able-bodied veteran who is thirty-eight years old? If someone's been disabled from their military service, then that I understand, but someone who did twenty years without incident? It seems to me it would make more sense for the military simply to contribute to their 401(k) accounts for when, decades later, they do reach actual retirement age.
     
  5. AUTiger00

    AUTiger00 New Member

    I'm going to disagree. You do your 20 years I am more than happy to have my dollars go towards funding your pension. The one thing I might change, say you do your 20 years and come out with all your facilities about you, how about the monthly paycheck doesn't begin until you're 50. I'm not talking about healthcare, you get that from day one, but the monthly paycheck doesn't begin for some time.
    Most of these guys (and gals) don't "retire" anyway. They work when they get out, but that gov't check is a nice supplement to their civilian paycheck or vice-versa.
     
  6. b4cz28

    b4cz28 Active Member

    Fiscally we don't need to be paying these guys until they reach a later age. It’s crazy to pay them at 37 or 38 years old and it’s not done in other services, such as law enforcement etc. Were all hurting and that something that I'm sure could save us a ton of money. 20 + X = 70 is the way it needs to be done.

    I want to be the nice guy here and say let them keep it but it really crazy when you think about it.
     
  7. major56

    major56 Active Member

    Out of 100 senators, only 24 have served in the United States military.

    At the start of the 111th Congress of 2009-2010, only 25% of U.S. senators and 21.6% of U.S. representatives had served at least some period in military uniform (active duty, Guard, or Reserve).

    Enough said…

    “In the 111th Congress there are 120 members who have served in the military, six fewer than in the 110th Congress. The House has 95 veterans (including one Delegate); the Senate 25. These members served in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo, as well as during times of peace. Some have served in the Reserves and the National Guard. Several members, in both the House and the Senate, are still serving as Reservists.

    The number of veterans in the 111th Congress reflects the trend of a steady decline in the number of members who have served in the military. For example, there were 298 veterans (240
    Representatives, 58 Senators) in the 96th Congress (1979-1981); and 398 veterans (329
    Representatives, 69 Senators) in the 91st Congress (1969-1971)” (Manning, 2010).
    http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL)PL%3B%3D%0A

    The military retirement package was an upfront contract with the service member and the US Government! Once the military retiree has fulfilled their part of the contract (e.g., honorably serving a min. of 20-years), the government should not be permitted to renege on the contract. Good deal or bad deal, honor your contracts!
     
  8. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    In my opinion this is the absolute minimum that should be considered. If it is felt that it should change then the new rules would only apply to the new recruits. As mentioned, agree or disagree but the good faith must be honored.
     
  9. major56

    major56 Active Member

    Absolutely Bill!
     
  10. b4cz28

    b4cz28 Active Member

    I don't think anyone wants to change things up on people who have been in already....just the new people hired.
     
  11. truckie270

    truckie270 New Member

    FWIW, the Pentagon has used the promise of a military pension as an incentive to keep people in military careers long after the point many of these people could have made exponentially more in the private sector. When the current conflicts started and the move towards contracting began, many service members chose to forgo large salaries for contractors to complete their military service and earn the benefits that were promised to them when they enlisted. For example, in the special operations community, companies like Blackwater, etc. were offering $1500 a day for work that Tier 1 operators who were doing it in uniform and making that much per week.

    Throw in military Doctors, lawyers, pilots, etc. who are incurring a significant opportunity cost to serve in uniform v. the private sector and it does not take much to see that the DOD is saving money by paying retirements for these specialties. You have to not only factor the costs of the pension, but the costs of training replacement personnel into the equation. Granted, lower-skilled specialties do not generate these savings for the DOD, but the retirement costs are proportionately lower as well.

    When I was a married E4, I was making $900 a month. I chose to leave the service for reasons other than financial ones, but I cannot imagine how the military would continue to meet its recruiting mission by changing a promise it has made since its inception. Changing this would result in a military that is in a continual state of transition because few would stay past the first enlistment or service obligation.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2011
  12. usmc

    usmc New Member

    Have any of you that say this is right to take away the "entitlement" should be aware of many factors. One- do any of you know the wear and tear 20yrs of deployments and combat does to ones body? Look it up for 1yr of service in a combat arms mos is equal to 3yrs in civilian life, do a deployment and your adding 7yrs. I will be 25 in dec. I have been in since i was 17. To date i have been shot once in the leg, blown up 11 times (out of those suffering 6 grade three concussions), 3 ribs have been seperated from my spine, and 2 bulging discs. This does not include the little pains and aches i live with everyday. I would say step back and consider is this what all of you incurred by the age of 25? My bet is no, there is a good bet the majority of us wont collect much of this retirement at the age of 65. This is what the gov is counting on. I would also take a look at a service member thats done a combat related MOS for 20yrs. Perhaps youll notice that person at the "young" age of 38-40 looks considerably older. Its people like you and congress that disgust me, i risk my life in service of god and country and this is what some of the public and goverment support. Shame on you.
     
  13. truckie270

    truckie270 New Member

    Correction - I was making $1800 a month as a married E4. If Congress is wanting reduce military retirement benefits, they should be willing to pay the market rate for the functions they require. I doubt you could find many highly skilled face-shooters willing to take the risk for what they are currently being paid without the after-service benefits.
     
  14. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    It might be political suicide for anyone to make the suggestion that has been discussed in this thread.
     
  15. truckie270

    truckie270 New Member

    Hang on there Brother.......I would like to distance myself from the "you" that you mention. First of all, thank you for your service and sacrifice. I was not for one minute suggesting a reduction in military retirement. I am a 30% disabled veteran as a result of the inadequacy of the "free" gov. healthcare I received in the military for an issue that would have easily been corrected in the civilian world. I spent five years in a SOCOM unit and was deployed for a majority of my time there (peacetime, but away from my family just the same). I ETS'ed after my first enlistment, but a majority of my friends remained and are now those weathered looking 38 year-olds. Several of my friends have been killed in the last ten years leaving young children behind.

    If Congress would like to overlook their own ridiculous retirement plans after arguably "productive" government service and focus on a reduction in military pay and benefits, maybe they should look at the upper levels of the military. Why does the Navy have more Admirals than ships? Why do O5s and O6s make coffee and copies as their primary job functions when assigned to the Pentagon? How many Generals and Admirals were on the ground when UBL was killed or in the MH-47 that just crashed in Afghanistan? For every General/Admiral salary, you could add three shooters to the ranks. Sorry for the rant, but I am tired of the service members in this country being labeled as the scapegoats for a broken government system.
     
  16. eilla05

    eilla05 New Member

    Personally I think before we start worrying about cutting the salaries/pensions of the men and women who serve our country we should look at the other government entitlement programs such as welfare, food stamps etc. There are many less deserving people living off those programs and many who choose not to even try to get a job because well why should they....the government puts clothes on their backs, food in their stomachs and gives them healthcare. But yeah lets focus on cutting entitlement programs for the people who allow this country to even be what it is.......

    Im curious if any of you who are saying cut it or make changes have ever served in the military or have family that has???
     
  17. stevesingh

    stevesingh New Member

    It doesnot matter what you discuss here . Nothin is ever goona change there .
     
  18. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Well, I can't speak for others, but I specifically excluded veterans who have been even partially disabled by their military experience, which it sounds like you were. Besides, I'm reminded of a point that one of the vets made here a while back, and that's that not ever veteran is a combat veteran. It takes a lot of logistics to support guys like you who were actually in harm's way. Would you suggest the same rules necessarily need to apply to some guy who drove a truck back home as apply to you? Because those 38 year olds don't have the same wear and tear that you do.

    To me the bottom line is that the military is way, way, too big and expensive to perform it's actual core job of defending the U.S. from attack, especially during an era of economic decline. Something has to give. What would you like it to be?

    -=Steve=-
     
  19. b4cz28

    b4cz28 Active Member

    If that's your argument then we need to start doing that for anyone with a hard job they choose to do. Wild land firefighters have a job more dangerous, harder on their bodies and with way less perks. They directly defend Americans every day. Let’s start letting them retire at 37 or 38 and see how long that lasts.

    I think the best thing about America is the fact you have a right to talk about anything you want. Joining the military is great and all..thank you etc..but I can care about cutting cost and never serve.

    The armed services are not some protected class of citizens that people can’t judge or talk about. Pepole can't feed their families right now for godsakes.

    But you are correct that all welfare should be cut at once. Also we need to stop funding the UN, Mexico..well we give money to half the world, why? Let’s cut all that as well.
     
  20. rmm0484

    rmm0484 Member

    I am tired of the geezer scapegoating as well.:disappointed:

    We need to get a handle on our spending, and stop singling out vulnerable targets such as retirees, and government and military personnel. An old budget trick is to cut very visible programs, knowing that they will be restored due to the pain incurred by those cuts. If we were all serious about fiduciary responsibly to the taxpayers, we would not have bridges to nowhere, senseless programs, waste, and and medicare fraud.

    When I was with the government, I made a suggestion that any realized cost saving and cost avoidance suggestions should reward the suggester - perhaps a share of the savings. This rebate could apply to organizations or individuals. Needless to say, it was not adopted, because who would be in a position to approve my suggestion?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2011

Share This Page