Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: RoadKingLarry on December 17, 2013, 10:35:59 PM
-
Time to *expletive deleted* the military again!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/17/senate-gop-fails-in-final-bid-to-restore-military-pension-cuts-to-budget-bill/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/17/senate-gop-fails-in-final-bid-to-restore-military-pension-cuts-to-budget-bill/)
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
I'd bet the OIF/OEF vet's I know won't stand there and get gassed.
-
On the one hand, this is a "cut" in the Democrat sense of being a smaller than expected COLA increase. On the other, when so many hundreds of billions are wasted (including for DoD pork buying. "We need to stockpile 10, 000 Chauchaut bolts in case we need to resupply Free French resistance fighters scavenging from museums, and wouldn't you know it Big Bob's House of Chauchaut Parts in in my district and gave my campaign $250,000...") that doing anything to vet compensation is pretty goddamn abhorrent.
-
I retire from the Naval Reserve in 2.5 years. I fully expect that in 2035 when I turn 60 I will get $0/month vs. the $3500 I project now with retirement calculators. I just don't see how the government can pay the bills. So I'm a little disappointed in the many vets I know wheeling out the Ryan is dead to them rhetoric. Perhaps the guy is smart enough to see something has to be done and tried a modest camel's nose of a COLA decrease. Surely he knows the political risk of going after the military.
Honestly, it's a drop in the bucket. They want to hugely cut retirement they need to re-offer 15 year retirement at the reduced 40% rate. Transition all service members under 6 years of service to a 401K(TSP) based retirement. Give the military a special IRS deal to ignore contribution caps for catch-ups. Of course do the same for civil service, bask in the glow of pain from that one. But then of course we need privatized social security, etc.
I get the distinction between earned and unearned benefits. To me, it really doesn't matter. If we're going to play a big old national sized V card all the time we are no better than union slugs destroying Seattle Boeing, Obama phone gimmegimmes, or stupid ass old geezers who do whatever the AARP tells them to. I'm sick of too dumb to think for ourselves block constituencies. There is a balance between veteran hate or apathy of the Vietnam or Tommy era and the current bootlicking leg tingling veteran adulation of today. We don't automatically win at life just because we signed up a long time ago. And this isn't the Bonus Army, not even close.
-
I get the distinction between earned and unearned benefits. To me, it really doesn't matter. If we're going to play a big old national sized V card all the time we are no better than union slugs destroying Seattle Boeing, Obama phone gimmegimmes, or stupid ass old geezers who do whatever the AARP tells them to. I'm sick of too dumb to think for ourselves block constituencies. There is a balance between veteran hate or apathy of the Vietnam or Tommy era and the current bootlicking leg tingling veteran adulation of today. We don't automatically win at life just because we signed up a long time ago. And this isn't the Bonus Army, not even close.
That's what I get for posting from a tablet and before coffee, I didn't communicate well. What I was trying to get at with the Bonus Army link is that there are plenty of people in the military now that hew to the "Gimme Fee Stuff" religion currently in vogue. I doubt a cut in COLA will be enough to trigger it, but a Bonus Army/Gimme my stuff vet march is as likely as any other civil unrest, but better trained and equipped.
I also agree that it's tiresome to be trotted out as a group every time the R's want to show the D's as mean. Yes, Veteran's were promised certain benefits, and plenty of folks including myself are counting on those payments as our retirement. But so were the rank and file at Enron. If there's no money, there's no money. And promised payments do me no good if they trigger inflation.
There's a small voice in the back of my mind these days however, that looks at government spending, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth at any mention of curtailing it from these overgrown, entitled brats and whispers "*expletive deleted*ck it, I got food and ammo. Let it all burn down." That voice is a little self destructive.
-
But so were the rank and file at Enron
Apples and oranges.
At least a few of the people that were responsible for the Enron debacle went to jail.
-
Maybe the Army and the Free $#!+ Army can meet in the streets and duke it out over who gets pork from the tax teat.
Really doesn't matter who wins that though, because neither of them (nor both combined) can defeat the army of creditors and accountants that owns this country's debt.
-
Not with that attitude!
I think I'll write a novel about a man whose anarchistic, anti-capitalist alter ego hatches a plan to destroy several financial institutions at once and wipe out a sizable amount of debt.
-
Maybe the Army and the Free $#!+ Army can meet in the streets and duke it out over who gets pork from the tax teat.
I have nothing to add except that metaphors ought not to be mixed that badly. <shudder>
-
Apples and oranges.
At least a few of the people that were responsible for the Enron debacle went to jail.
True. My current boss is one of the people who would be retired early right now if it wasn't for losing all his savings in that mess.
-
I get the distinction between earned and unearned benefits. To me, it really doesn't matter. If we're going to play a big old national sized V card all the time we are no better than union slugs destroying Seattle Boeing, Obama phone gimmegimmes, or stupid ass old geezers who do whatever the AARP tells them to. I'm sick of too dumb to think for ourselves block constituencies. There is a balance between veteran hate or apathy of the Vietnam or Tommy era and the current bootlicking leg tingling veteran adulation of today. We don't automatically win at life just because we signed up a long time ago. And this isn't the Bonus Army, not even close.
French G, I love this paragraph. It's beautiful. Thank you for posting it.
In certain roles, I see how it is in the nation's best interest to have competitive career benefits to private life. High ranking command officers, weapons researchers (though that is mostly privatized now), nuclear reactor engineers and technicians, people who design and maintain complicated machinery and sophisticated computer networks, masters of the skills of warcraft who teach those skills to the next batch of warriors. Gotta retain them, so lifelong employment and retirement perks makes sense.
But for PFC Skippy you guys bring up so frequently? Eff, no! For that matter, any infantry/combat/bureaucratic support/MP/janitorial/fighter-jockey/cooking/etc role. I don't think it's in a person's best interest to remain employed by the armed forces in a lifelong pursuit of any of those roles. It's certainly not in the nation's best interest to pay retirement benefits to people who put in 20 years in these positions. It's hardly irreplaceable talent. You may think that's callous, but history shows that imperial-sized armies are quite easy to assemble and replace fallen soldiers.
That doesn't mean that guys who get injured in the line of duty (or families of those who die in service) shouldn't be taken care of. Of course they should.
But the military shouldn't be a means of an easy retirement.
And it absolutely shouldn't be manipulated into a block constituency like it has been.
-
fighter-jockey
It costs a lot of money to train a pilot. It is in the .gov's best interest to keep those people in for a long career vs. spending all that money on training and then shoving them out after a few years so they can go fly an airliner...
Combat roles are the same way. Good leaders are those with experience.
Now, it shouldn't be easy to fail upwards and stay in for 20-30 years spreading your stupid, but competent, skilled people should be retained as much as possible. You don't throw away a valuable employee that performs well...
-
It costs a lot of money to train a pilot. It is in the .gov's best interest to keep those people in for a long career vs. spending all that money on training and then shoving them out after a few years so they can go fly an airliner...
Combat roles are the same way. Good leaders are those with experience.
Now, it shouldn't be easy to fail upwards and stay in for 20-30 years spreading your stupid, but competent, skilled people should be retained as much as possible. You don't throw away a valuable employee that performs well...
Yeah, shoving pilots out the door would be kinda ridiculous after you spend millions training one. They're having enough trouble keeping pilots.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
I'd bet the OIF/OEF vet's I know won't stand there and get gassed.
There's always a silver lining ;)
-
raise the standards, cut the morons, and you WONT be rewarding idiots who punch a ticket for 20 years.
The military is too large.
However, cutting pensions and whatnot will get rid of the GOOD ones, who will go on to greener pastures.
Training combat leaders is expensive.
Better to cut the *expletive deleted*it out of the dirtbags. IMHO
-
raise the standards, cut the morons, and you WONT be rewarding idiots who punch a ticket for 20 years.
The military is too large.
However, cutting pensions and whatnot will get rid of the GOOD ones, who will go on to greener pastures.
Training combat leaders is expensive.
Better to cut the *expletive deleted* out of the dirtbags. IMHO
Fitz has the right idea. Unfortunately never happen, because it makes far too much sense.
-
That's the problem with all spending cuts. They target the most valuable people but God forbid you should reduce Lashonda's Obamaphone minutes, or Congressman Greasy's
vote buying pork spending.
-
raise the standards, cut the morons, and you WONT be rewarding idiots who punch a ticket for 20 years.
The military is too large.
However, cutting pensions and whatnot will get rid of the GOOD ones, who will go on to greener pastures.
Training combat leaders is expensive.
Better to cut the *expletive deleted* out of the dirtbags. IMHO
Lots to agree with here.
-
It's cyclical, part of the "peace dividend" after each period of warmongering ends.
USAF is contemplating the same 15 year early retirement plan they offered us back in 2000-2001.
The more things change...
-
French G, I love this paragraph. It's beautiful. Thank you for posting it.
In certain roles, I see how it is in the nation's best interest to have competitive career benefits to private life. High ranking command officers, weapons researchers (though that is mostly privatized now), nuclear reactor engineers and technicians, people who design and maintain complicated machinery and sophisticated computer networks, masters of the skills of warcraft who teach those skills to the next batch of warriors. Gotta retain them, so lifelong employment and retirement perks makes sense.
But for PFC Skippy you guys bring up so frequently? Eff, no! For that matter, any infantry/combat/bureaucratic support/MP/janitorial/fighter-jockey/cooking/etc role. I don't think it's in a person's best interest to remain employed by the armed forces in a lifelong pursuit of any of those roles. It's certainly not in the nation's best interest to pay retirement benefits to people who put in 20 years in these positions. It's hardly irreplaceable talent. You may think that's callous, but history shows that imperial-sized armies are quite easy to assemble and replace fallen soldiers.
That doesn't mean that guys who get injured in the line of duty (or families of those who die in service) shouldn't be taken care of. Of course they should.
But the military shouldn't be a means of an easy retirement.
And it absolutely shouldn't be manipulated into a block constituency like it has been.
There's so much fail in this that it's hard to begin.
You say:
people who design and maintain complicated machinery and sophisticated computer networks, masters of the skills of warcraft who teach those skills to the next batch of warriors. Gotta retain them, so lifelong employment and retirement perks makes sense.
But for PFC Skippy you guys bring up so frequently? Eff, no! For that matter, any infantry/combat/bureaucratic support/MP/janitorial/fighter-jockey/cooking/etc role. I don't think it's in a person's best interest to remain employed by the armed forces in a lifelong pursuit of any of those roles.
Let's start with the basics shall we? It's the guys with 12, 15, 20+ years experience that teach "the next batch of warriors". They also teach the guys that sustain and maintain that complicated equipment and machinery on how to do it. And let's go point by point.
Infantry- Definitely a young man's game. The wear and tear on the body is phenomenal even on a Mech Infantry grunt. Moreso, should you choose to fall out of planes and/or helicopters, go ranger, or become a snake eater.
Combat- Humping 155 rounds, breaking track, or building a bridge also puts great wear on the body. Those are also young man's jobs.
Bureaucratic support- Do mean things like beans and bullets or HR functions? Because everyone I know wants the newest soldier to be their unit's clerk and to process their evals, orders and awards. Can't have any experienced folks doing those jobs.
MP- No, it's not writing traffic tickets on post. Guess who had the second highest casualty rate in Iraq? Yeah, the guys doing convoy escorts and finding IED's with their vehicles.
Janitorial- Don't know of any service that has a "Janitorial" MOS. Yes, all soldiers are expected to learn how to keep themselves and the living areas clean. Just like you have to keep your house clean, just maybe not to the same standards as the First Sergeant insists upon.
Fighter jockey- I good friend of mine is former Air Force. He guesstimated the USAF spent over $1million on him before he even touched an airplane. Probably another $2-3 million teaching him to fly and another million or so how to fight. So yeah, no need to to retain that investment.
Cooks- Yes, because everyone just wants the pimplely faced kid to all the cooking for 120+ people in your unit. I mean they've got the recipe cards and bunch of pots and pans and an MKT, how hard can it be?
etc- Not sure who the etcera would be. You pretty much said "Eff, No" to all the Combat Arms, Combat Support and Combat Service Support jobs. Which is every job in the Military.
Is that how your company does it? No experienced people allowed?
Also it's "Up or Out" in the military. Last I checked you have to make E-6 or O-4 to make it to twenty years. Not too many PFC's make it past 7 or 8 without getting booted. None-select twice for Major (at about years 8-12) and "bu-bye". You don't get any retirement. The only PFC's that get retirement are those that are medically retired. Due to illness (like Agent Orange or Gulf War Syndrome), injury or wounds.
Ask anyone who served if the military is an easy retirement. It's not. And if anything, they should make it 25 years to get full pension. Although, they will probably offer 15yr 40% like they did in the 90's to cut the numbers.
There are also a couple of other jobs that I have no problem with having a defined benefit plan and retirement after X years.
Firefighter- I want some young guys hauling my carcass out of my burning house, not some old dude that I'll have to do CPR upon. Firefighting is another youngman's game. Retirement with pension after 25 years.*
Police- Same as above. I want young legs hoofing it after criminals. Again, retirement with pension after 25 years.*
All other civil service jobs# need to go to a defined contribution/401k plan. Now.
But do I understand their anger and resentment. Yes. They were promised you do 20, we will pay you 50% of what you retire at. For the rest of your life.
Can we and should make cuts? Yes. Everyone across the board. If they would have cut welfare, SS, SSDI, Civil Service Pensions, Congressional Pensions, etc. Then no one could have said "Boo", but when some sacred cows are spared, the ones selected will complain, and rightfully so.
*- One current problem, at least here in Illinois is the double and sometimes triple dipping in pensions. For example: I know a guy who worked for 20+ years as firefighter and retired with a full pension. He then went to work for a different municipality as a fire inspector for 10 or 12 years, and retired from that job with another full pension. Utter Bull Cookies. You get one Civil Service pension. If you begin a second career after you retire from public service then you can only do the 401k option.
#- the ones remaining. Every single level of .gov needs to cut 20% of their payroll this year, then 10% a year for the next five years. We'll re-evaluate and decide how much the cuts should be every year after that.
-
French G, I love this paragraph. It's beautiful. Thank you for posting it.
In certain roles, I see how it is in the nation's best interest to have competitive career benefits to private life. High ranking command officers, weapons researchers (though that is mostly privatized now), nuclear reactor engineers and technicians, people who design and maintain complicated machinery and sophisticated computer networks, masters of the skills of warcraft who teach those skills to the next batch of warriors. Gotta retain them, so lifelong employment and retirement perks makes sense.
But for PFC Skippy you guys bring up so frequently? Eff, no! For that matter, any infantry/combat/bureaucratic support/MP/janitorial/fighter-jockey/cooking/etc role. I don't think it's in a person's best interest to remain employed by the armed forces in a lifelong pursuit of any of those roles. It's certainly not in the nation's best interest to pay retirement benefits to people who put in 20 years in these positions. It's hardly irreplaceable talent. You may think that's callous, but history shows that imperial-sized armies are quite easy to assemble and replace fallen soldiers.
That doesn't mean that guys who get injured in the line of duty (or families of those who die in service) shouldn't be taken care of. Of course they should.
But the military shouldn't be a means of an easy retirement.
And it absolutely shouldn't be manipulated into a block constituency like it has been.
Your statement isn't callous, it is ignorant. Any idiot can buy a boat and drive it. I spent 9 months learning the basics of driving a lifeboat. After getting certified I spent 3 more years certifying as a Surfman. Most of that time was in La Push, WA driving boats in some of the shittiest weather imaginable. During one winter I didn't have a single SAR case that started after 1600 but ended before 2400. Several of those cases ran over 24 hours and the whole crew was hypothermic by the time we got back.
I spent a total of 16 years at west coast life boat stations driving lifeboats in the surf and training others to do the same. You have no effing clue of what "hardly irreplaceable talent" is, or isn't, when it comes to the military. I would guarantee infantry skills are just like life boat driving skills. Easy when you are on the outside looking in, and not so easy to do well under stress at night when you are cold, tired and scared shitless.
history shows that imperial-sized armies are quite easy to assemble and replace fallen soldiers
Really? Why don't you back up this asinine statement with some proof!
masters of the skills of warcraft who teach those skills to the next batch of warriors
:facepalm: :facepalm:
On the one hand you want to keep the people who can train others to fight, but you want to get rid of the infantryman because those skills are hardly irreplaceable and it isn't in the country's best interest to retain them for a 20 year career? Who the hell do you think has the skills to train infantry? The guy who has been doing it 20 or more years or the guy who graduated from infantry AIT last year? :facepalm:
-
Alright, folks, we can discuss the topic at hand without getting personal, ok?
-
Easy when you are on the outside looking in,
You know a hell of a lot of skills and jobs look easy from the outsiders point of view but few jobs or tasks are as simple as that...
-
history shows that imperial-sized armies are quite easy to assemble and replace fallen soldiers
I don't agree with any of his other assertions, but this one is true.
Examples (limited to the past century)
WW1
WW2
Korea
If you don't want/need professionalism, it's pretty easy to hand every able bodied peasant a rifle and reconstitute your forces.
I won't even bring up the current admin/climate chasing off solid, experienced NCOs that are just tired of the bullshit, and we're all worse off for it.
-
Last I checked you have to make E-6 or O-4 to make it to twenty years.
Just FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Year_Tenure
-
If you don't want/need professionalism, it's pretty easy to hand every able bodied peasant a rifle and reconstitute your forces.
Yes, very easy to do so if you care nothing about the casualties taken by green recruits, which was a common attitude in the past. Today a first world country's enlisted soldier's life tends to be regarded much more highly, and this is a good thing.
-
The CG HYT PGP's are changing.
http://www.uscg.mil/epm/HYT/ALCOAST%20171_13.pdf
The 20 year PGP for E4 and below is very misleading. Nobody is being allowed to stay in for 20 years as an E4 or below. Anybody who starts to stagnate like that end up on performance probation and finds their way back to the civilian world.
edit: How do I know this? I've booted a number of them myself.
-
I believe the army's RCP for e4 is 10 years
-
What pisses me off the most about this whole deal is that promises to the military were broken again. Why doesn't this change to COLA also apply to federal employees who are currently working for .gov? I keep hearing that personnel costs are spiraling out of control. Flag officers have been harping on this lately. The Navy Times blew a hole in that argument with this article.
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20131124/BENEFITS02/311240019/Top-brass-claims-personnel-costs-swamping-DoD-budget-figures-say-otherwise
The new refrain is that this article doesn't count things like subsidized child care, commissaries, gyms, etc!
Well, cut that crap out then. Why not charge people in government housing for their utilities?
I would bet plenty of service men and women would volunteer to take a pay cut or pay freeze, but don't break your word to us. The vast majority of us that made this a career didn't do it for the easy retirement check.
-
Yes, very easy to do so if you care nothing about the casualties taken by green recruits, which was a common attitude in the past. Today a first world country's enlisted soldier's life tends to be regarded much more highly, and this is a good thing.
No *expletive deleted*it. I was pointing out historical evidence of AZ's original point.
As an enlisted Marine, in a first world military, I've got a fair idea of how that works ;/
-
No *expletive deleted*. I was pointing out historical evidence of AZ's original point.
As an enlisted Marine, in a first world military, I've got a fair idea of how that works ;/
No need to roll your eyes at me man I was agreeing with you. Jesus.
-
I feel like I ought to post something indignant. Do not want to be left out.
-
But the military shouldn't be a means of an easy retirement
I've heard that from many people that have never worn the uniform.
Few jobs in the military can really be described as easy.
I don't consider what I did to have been terribly hard or particularly dangerous but not everyone gets a kick out of spend 80-90 days at a time submerged in a steel tube more or less entirely cut off from the rest of the world. Of course we weren't always on extended deployments. Most of the time we were on "weekly ops", at sea for 2-7 weeks at a time involved in training exercises, NATO ops, reactor inspections, weapons inspections and the like.
In port time of course allowed for upkeep, repair and maintenance of equipment, training, duty days, stores loads etc etc etc... Oh and there were always a few days to be spent with family, needs of the Navy permitting of course. The last 3 years on a boat we were in port less than 9 months total, So average something less than 3 months a year at home.
My first tour on a boat came after about 18 months of electronics training after basic. Then another year learning my job on the boat. It takes about a year to "qualify" submarines then the learning starts, you either earn your dolphns or your surface fleet bound. Then the rest of the first enlistment getting good at the job and starting to train the guys coming in behind.
Of course not all of my 12 years in the Navy were at sea. I spent almost 4 years as an instructor at Sub School in Groton teaching an advanced ESM system.
Yeah shore duty. Of course the CO of Sub School didn't think shore duty should be any kind of break and thought it should be considered an arduous duty assignment and operated accordingly.
Let us not forget that the military gets 30 days vacation a year right off the bat. Of course that includes weekends and holidays if your leave period included those days. And, unless you were on PCS orders getting more than 14 days leave at a time was out of the question.
Easy? not really.
I only stayed 12 years and decided to go elsewhere. So I don't have a dog in the fight as to the cuts in COLA or any other retirement benefits.
-
No need to roll your eyes at me man I was agreeing with you. Jesus.
My bad then. I mistook your last post for criticism, in which case, didn't mean to be rude.
-
The new refrain is that this article doesn't count things like subsidized child care, commissaries, gyms, etc!
Well, cut that crap out then. Why not charge people in government housing for their utilities?
I would bet plenty of service men and women would volunteer to take a pay cut or pay freeze, but don't break your word to us. The vast majority of us that made this a career didn't do it for the easy retirement check.
Are you sure? As a recent vet I'm tapped into a fair number of current and active military. Very few are interested in seeing any benefits go away. Witness the recent furor over reducing tuition assistance. I think French G made some good points in his first post.
-
So, you guys will take a bullet for the country as long as you get your 30 pieces of silver?
But once the silver dries up, no way?
Please clarify.
Why do you do, what you do?
The greatest threat this country faces isn't the Commies, or the Norks, or the Shifty-Eyed-Ay-rabs. It's financial ruin.
How will our military bravely face that?
-
Holy sheep dip, AZRH44!
That's very low - "30 pieces of silver".
WTF?
We didn't do it to get rich, just look at the DoD pay scales.
Nor did we do it for nothing. We might be stupid, but not that dumb.
It was a wage, and a promise.
To quote Nazareth - Don't Judas me.
-
So, you guys will take a bullet for the country as long as you get your 30 pieces of silver?
But once the silver dries up, no way?
Please clarify.
Why do you do, what you do?
The greatest threat this country faces isn't the Commies, or the Norks, or the Shifty-Eyed-Ay-rabs. It's financial ruin.
How will our military bravely face that?
Wow, just wow...
-
So to recap, members of the .mil are equivalent to the most infamous traitor in all of history, and wanting the fed.gov to keep the terms of their contract is equivalent to betraying the Son of God. Gotcha. :rofl: I think this thread has gone full retard now.
As an aside, are they also cutting the COLA for non-.mil federal retirees? It's funny how the side that says we need to cut $ to the .mil because everyone has to share the burden isn't willing to cut pay for the fcking bureaucrats.
-
Speaking purely for the grunts here, but a security contractor gig pays what, couple hundred thousand for a total of one year worked in two calendar? Junior enlisted pull down less than minimum wage. Yeah, those bastards are just in it for the money. How dare they not offer to destroy their lives for free?
And I think that if all fed.gov employees took a hit instead of just the .mil then they'd bitch (because bitching is a soldier/Marines etc's God given right! :lol: ) but they'd overall be ok with it. But when some fat communist who's pulling down six figures as the inner city diversity expert on community organizing relations at HHS doesn't get their pay and benefits cut? Fck that.
-
Maybe the Army and the Free $#!+ Army can meet in the streets and duke it out over who gets pork from the tax teat.
Really doesn't matter who wins that though, because neither of them (nor both combined) can defeat the army of creditors and accountants that owns this country's debt.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't looking for pork, I did mention a distinction between earned and un-earned. I was trying to point out that if every vet goes all allahMcscreamingbeard if anyone even mentions tampering with military pension then it is just one more third rail riding us to financial ruin. there needs to be more adult debate where the legislator doesn't expect the tar and feathers and the vets don't expect a royal shaft. Maybe a COLA freeze is wrong, unless across the board in all federal areas. But there needs to be a discussion about how to reform military pension to keep the promises made and not bankrupt the country. I was not promised a specific COLA in any contract, so some of the really ragey vets I've encountered need to breathe a little. I still say walk it towards 401K only for new recruits and turn the 15 year and 40% spigot on.
French G, I love this paragraph. It's beautiful. Thank you for posting it.
In certain roles, I see how it is in the nation's best interest to have competitive career benefits to private life. High ranking command officers, weapons researchers (though that is mostly privatized now), nuclear reactor engineers and technicians, people who design and maintain complicated machinery and sophisticated computer networks, masters of the skills of warcraft who teach those skills to the next batch of warriors. Gotta retain them, so lifelong employment and retirement perks makes sense.
But for PFC Skippy you guys bring up so frequently? Eff, no! For that matter, any infantry/combat/bureaucratic support/MP/janitorial/fighter-jockey/cooking/etc role. I don't think it's in a person's best interest to remain employed by the armed forces in a lifelong pursuit of any of those roles. It's certainly not in the nation's best interest to pay retirement benefits to people who put in 20 years in these positions. It's hardly irreplaceable talent. You may think that's callous, but history shows that imperial-sized armies are quite easy to assemble and replace fallen soldiers.
That doesn't mean that guys who get injured in the line of duty (or families of those who die in service) shouldn't be taken care of. Of course they should.
But the military shouldn't be a means of an easy retirement.
And it absolutely shouldn't be manipulated into a block constituency like it has been.
Most of this has been picked apart, PFC Skippy got high year tenured out long ago. Personally I have a real issue with the up or out mentality. Perhaps it's because I've been an E-6 since 14 Dec 1999. =D There are great O-3s and O-4s that drive airplanes very well and should be retained for 20 but will be a soup sandwich once they are forced up and put in charge of a squadron. When I came in E-5s could retire in the Navy, I saw some really competent techs make it that far, would have been bad a paygrade up. Sure some crapballs slid to 20, but that's their leader's fault for not telling it like it is. There's a block on the evaluation that says "Not recommended for retention." Needs to be used.
Me, I would have been a very good E-7 to E-8, I don't have the charming personality to be an effective E-9, need to be a real people person in my opinion to be the senior enlisted leader in a command. I punched on my career in '08 at 14 years of active duty. Conventional wisdom is I was nuts, 6 years to retirement. That was my only reason to stay and it really weighed on me to put in time just for the check when I wanted to be elsewhere. So I got out for kid, wife and home. Kid has worked out wonderfully, wife and home eh, not so much.
Really, I want to get my retirement check when I hit 60. That will mean the country still functions. For me there is no charming 3rd world country with my wallet full of bitcoin and a secure cyber life. I was born here, kinda like the Republic, wish it would function. So, if we financially fail I'd take no glee in the crash of America like some. Hopefully a re-formed government would honor previous contracts. (Not this one of course, see GM) I still haven't fully laid out my thoughts on this, just wish that vets would be the adults in the room and not throw out the V card. Sure I've got a list of programs that need to be cut before my pension but in reality the oath of enlistment(6 times by now) doesn't really expire in my mind and it takes precedence over my check in the mail.
-
Are you sure? As a recent vet I'm tapped into a fair number of current and active military. Very few are interested in seeing any benefits go away. Witness the recent furor over reducing tuition assistance. I think French G made some good points in his first post.
Yup, I'm sure.
I have heard pretty much zero bitching about TA being changed.
-
So, you guys will take a bullet for the country as long as you get your 30 pieces of silver?
But once the silver dries up, no way?
Please clarify.
Why do you do, what you do?
The greatest threat this country faces isn't the Commies, or the Norks, or the Shifty-Eyed-Ay-rabs. It's financial ruin.
How will our military bravely face that?
Would you listen? This isn't the first time you have made disdainful comments about "any infantry/combat/bureaucratic support/MP/janitorial/fighter-jockey/cooking/etc role."
This quote of yours makes me think you truly don't understand.
It's hardly irreplaceable talent
-
Would you listen? This isn't the first time you have made disdainful comments about "any infantry/combat/bureaucratic support/MP/janitorial/fighter-jockey/cooking/etc role."
This quote of yours makes me think you truly don't understand.
That az44 does not understand the motivations of folk who choose combat arms of their own volition is readily apparent. I suspect it is a lost cause after years of exposure to a fair number of them here on aps.
-
So, you guys will take a bullet for the country as long as you get your 30 pieces of silver?
But once the silver dries up, no way?
Please clarify.
Why do you do, what you do?
The greatest threat this country faces isn't the Commies, or the Norks, or the Shifty-Eyed-Ay-rabs. It's financial ruin.
How will our military bravely face that?
That was unnecessarily inflammatory and, well, unnecessary in the first place.
You purposely misunderstood their arguments and took a argument over economics and tried to turn it into an argument over virtues.
The veterans (of which, I am not) and those who are supporting them were not saying that no cuts whatsoever must ever touch the military.
They were pointing out the costs to the (in my own opinion) flippant cuts you were suggesting- that is, that very few positions in the modern military are "low-skill". They may require following orders, but almost all of them must be taught which entails an investment of time and money.
As with any investment, it is wise to consider what the replacement cost of an employee would be and if it is better to keep the experienced employees on hand or just pay dirt cheap wages to skill-less workers straight off the street.
You purposely tried to turn it into "WELL YOU DON'T LOVE 'MERICAH THEN!" Pointing out costs is not the same as saying no one would ever join the military if they weren't being paid. They (and now, I, as well) are saying that it is better to align incentives in a way that has the best return for the investment.
You can ignore that argument (as you clearly did) but that doesn't make the costs disappear.
-
So, you guys will take a bullet for the country as long as you get your 30 pieces of silver?
But once the silver dries up, no way?
Please clarify.
Why do you do, what you do?
The greatest threat this country faces isn't the Commies, or the Norks, or the Shifty-Eyed-Ay-rabs. It's financial ruin.
How will our military bravely face that?
Wow dude...wow
-
So, you guys will take a bullet for the country as long as you get your 30 pieces of silver?
But once the silver dries up, no way?
Please clarify.
Why do you do, what you do?
The greatest threat this country faces isn't the Commies, or the Norks, or the Shifty-Eyed-Ay-rabs. It's financial ruin.
How will our military bravely face that?
:facepalm:
What's your anwer? Do the military like the peace corps? A bunch of unpaid volunteers?
And back to you, Why do you do what you do?
-
You're right, that was inflammatory. I apologize. It was hastily written looking for something suitably barbed, and I overdid it.
However:
AmRevWar soldiers did not get pensions after 20 years of service.
Civil War era soldiers did not get pensions after 20 years of service.
WWI/II era soldiers did not get pensions after 20 years of service.
There were highly skilled warriors in all those conflicts.
This idea of soldier pensions is a direct result of the growth of unions. We see exactly what that got us, in the form of violations of the sanctity of contracts (GM bailout and bondholder shafting sponsored by govt).
Debt, SS and DOD are the three biggest line items on the budget. Nation-killing deficits, each one of them.
-
This idea of soldier pensions is a direct result of the growth of unions.
Wrong
There were pensions for the American Revolutionary War.
The first pension law in 1776 granted half-pay for life to soldiers disabled in the service and unable to earn a living. The first pension law based on service was passed in 1818, but it was later amended to make eligible only those soldiers unable to earn a living. The pension act of 1832 allowed pensions again based on service and made widows of veterans also eligible to receive pension benefits. Fires in 1800 destroyed the earliest Revolutionary War pension application records. As a result, pension application papers on file at the National Archives begin after 1800. Certain pension records predating 1800 survive in the form of Congressional reports and other legislation. Reports available are arranged by state; they give name, rank, regiment, description of wounds, and disability; they also give information regarding pension, place of residence, and physical fitness. (FHL film 0944495.)
Not the retirement system we have today, no, but still a pension system before unions.
Civil War Pensions happened too
One of the things is the 20 year service requirement did not come around till modern times. Previous pensions could and often were based on shorter service terms and/or disability or wounds.
I do not understand your war against veteran pensions...
-
I knew about those types of pensions, Boomhauer. No problem with wounded pensions or death benefits.
-
AZ you just don't get it and I'm not sure you have the back ground to understand.
The military is a young man's (and women ;/) world. At 30 I was pushing into "old man" territory. If I had stayed for 20 I could have "retired" at the tender age of 38 (or more likely closer to 40 due to "encouraged" extensions), actually it is officially a transfer to the Naval reserve as I would have been obligated to a further 10 year inactive reserve term during which I would have been subject to involuntary recall, there is a good possibility had I stayed for 20 I could have still been subject to recall after 9/11. As it was when I took an early out at 12 years of service I was obligated for a 2 year inactive reserve. That expired in 1994.
I am unaware of any civilian occupation where you can forceably be recalled to a previous job.
How long did it take you to become competent at your chosen career? How long did it take you to get good at it?
Would you like to start over in a similar but not quite the same line of work (oh, and a significant part of your resume is "classified"), starting at the bottom working with people that have been doing your new line of work for 10-15 or more years?
That's what most vets face when they get out of the military whether they served 20 or a lesser hitch like I did. Sure a 4 year enlistment isn't that big a set back to a career but try starting over after just 12 like I did. I had spent 12 years first learning then becoming pretty damn good at what I did which in addition to being an electronics tech I also trained and for the last several years supervised my division on the boat. Sure when I got out I eventually landed a job doing electronics/computer work but it was entry level and I had to work my way back up from the bottom, which I did in pretty short order.
A 20 year career does entail considerable sacrifice. Just compensation for that sacrifice at the very least includes our government not breaking the promises it made to the people that volunteered to serve their country risking their life and limb so that the majority of people in this country don't have to.
Yes, we face a serious pendng financial crisis but military retirements and other earned benefits are not the anchor that is dragging us into oblivion.
-
Son, I've got bad news for you. We can't afford the $500 to get your abscessed tooth fixed. Our budget is bad, and we just don't have the cash.
But dad, couldn't you maybe reduce the high def sports package on cable and drop your membership at the country club to a lower level just for a month?
WHY ARE YOU SO SELFISH? WHY WON'T YOU SACRIFICE FOR THE FAMILY, JUDAS?!?!?!?!
;/
There's so much pork and BS to be cut, that saving a tiny fraction of what's needed by doing the thing that most harms the people who have already been harmed the most by their service is asinine.
-
You're right, that was inflammatory. I apologize. It was hastily written looking for something suitably barbed, and I overdid it.
However:
AmRevWar soldiers did not get pensions after 20 years of service.
Civil War era soldiers did not get pensions after 20 years of service.
WWI/II era soldiers did not get pensions after 20 years of service.
There were highly skilled warriors in all those conflicts.
Much less then you think. I take it for granted but I am sometimes slapped in the face with the fact that America has NO IDEA how to fight a modern war.
Since you seem such an expert on "Highly Skilled" warriors, what do you think the list of common and individual tasks that you need to know to be an Infantryman is? Just go to Skill Level 1, you're basic qualified E3 or so. Or an MP. "Bureaucratic Support". That's pretty vague. But Combat Logistics is not that same as ordering something from Amazon. What makes you think there are ANY unskilled E6 and up positions in the military? (There are, but you don't know what they are.)
FWIW the skills that are needed to be a good soldier this century have never before in the history of mankind been required of the enlisted troops.
-
We'll eventually by default of being broke get our libertarian wet dream of a vastly reduced military able to maybe defend our borders. Then when the next big idiocy kicks off we'll spend 2 years getting competent again and kill a bunch of green people because war is easy, get more conscripts!
-
Much less then you think. I take it for granted but I am sometimes slapped in the face with the fact that America has NO IDEA how to fight a modern war.
Since you seem such an expert on "Highly Skilled" warriors, what do you think the list of common and individual tasks that you need to know to be an Infantryman is? Just go to Skill Level 1, you're basic qualified E3 or so. Or an MP. "Bureaucratic Support". That's pretty vague. But Combat Logistics is not that same as ordering something from Amazon. What makes you think there are ANY unskilled E6 and up positions in the military? (There are, but you don't know what they are.)
FWIW the skills that are needed to be a good soldier this century have never before in the history of mankind been required of the enlisted troops.
I have no idea what those skills are, and my peer from 500 AD probably had no idea what the advanced skills would have been to be a Roman Centurion. And I'm sure there was skill necessary to be learned, and that it could be taught efficiently to new recruits.
Supply chains have been one of the defining factors of military campaign success or failure since wars involved anything more complicated than a few dozen barbarians randomly pillaging the countryside. Yes, they're complicated.
And if war was as simple as knowing a static skillset and never evolving, it wouldn't be war.
AZ you just don't get it and I'm not sure you have the back ground to understand.
How long did it take you to become competent at your chosen career? How long did it take you to get good at it?
Would you like to start over in a similar but not quite the same line of work (oh, and a significant part of your resume is "classified"), starting at the bottom working with people that have been doing your new line of work for 10-15 or more years?
That's what most vets face when they get out of the military whether they served 20 or a lesser hitch like I did. Sure a 4 year enlistment isn't that big a set back to a career but try starting over after just 12 like I did. I had spent 12 years first learning then becoming pretty damn good at what I did which in addition to being an electronics tech I also trained and for the last several years supervised my division on the boat. Sure when I got out I eventually landed a job doing electronics/computer work but it was entry level and I had to work my way back up from the bottom, which I did in pretty short order.
A 20 year career does entail considerable sacrifice. Just compensation for that sacrifice at the very least includes our government not breaking the promises it made to the people that volunteered to serve their country risking their life and limb so that the majority of people in this country don't have to.
RKL, any career nowadays is a temporary creature. It's pretty well standardized that people nowadays will have several careers in their professional lives, and skills from one career will not carry over to the next. 7-15 years per career is the number I think I've heard.
No pensions for us out in the private sector. Those are long gone, unless you're Union, a government employee (but I repeat myself), or Armed Forces (but I repeat myself).
Breaking promises... no. If they were made, they should be honored.
But it's time to stop offering pensions. The rest of the world has. Except unions and such, which are causing a significant portion of the financial troubles that exist today.
-
skills from one career will not carry over to the next
But it sure helps if you got the wits to just figure things out ;)