*shrugs* Nature of the beast. It's clear from Day One.
I don't know, but you should.
Cut Military Retirees' Benefits?
- Thread starter Accountable
- Start date
Overall, I have a decent job and nothing is perfect. Grass is always greener on the other side.
Assuming you enlisted in your early 20's, you got out when you were in your 40's. What kind of job do you have now and how is the insurance?
Don't get me wrong, I realize after your 20 the government owes you something, but where do you draw the line?
My dad put in at lead 25, got out, worked two more jobs after that, and he still works at a fly fishing shop part time pushing 80. We were just talking about his retirement over the phone couple weeks ago. He's not complaining.
I'd love to see Congress members have to accept the same benefits the military retirees, or hell, the rest of the US population receives.
Did you even read the OP? I really tried to make it clear that my complaint wasn't about me.
Colbert hit this one out of the park...
[video]http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/402700/november-17-2011/the-word---the-1-[/video]
[video]http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/402700/november-17-2011/the-word---the-1-[/video]
they should cut the nonsense
just go with an across the board 10% cut on every govt program
not after baseline but actual frigging cuts of 10%
then no interest group can say they are being singled out
if you want to still tax the rich that is another discussion
both sides are idiots
and without reform of SS and Medicare it all is pointless. Did you see how many people are living to be 90 now a days? The system was never going to be able support people into their 90's when it was designed at the time for people to live until their late 60's. They have tweaked it over the years but that is just kicking the can down the road. Eventually you reach a dead end.
a fifth grader can figure this shit out
just go with an across the board 10% cut on every govt program
not after baseline but actual frigging cuts of 10%
then no interest group can say they are being singled out
if you want to still tax the rich that is another discussion
both sides are idiots
and without reform of SS and Medicare it all is pointless. Did you see how many people are living to be 90 now a days? The system was never going to be able support people into their 90's when it was designed at the time for people to live until their late 60's. They have tweaked it over the years but that is just kicking the can down the road. Eventually you reach a dead end.
a fifth grader can figure this shit out
Apologies, forgot about this thread.
Ultimately, unless you're disabled due to your military service, if you get something cut as far as benefits, you get something cut like everyone else. I guess you're saying if a person put in 20 years and saw combat, they should be excluded from the cuts other service members get hit with that didn't see combat?
The guys who are going to get fucked over are those who sign up, go overseas, and come back with limbs missing, less the PTSS. Those are the guys EVERY American should be looking out for.
Right. If the gov't decides to renege on it's legal and moral obligations, we should make damn sure it doesn't happen to our combat vets.
True dat.
Picking winners and losers is all about politics
Thus the reason to have an across the board cut
That and no new programs ergo no NEW spending
The Tea Party is the only ones even coming close to doing this. And they get labeled as nuts while the media adores the anarchists protesting on Wall St.
Everybody is for change unless it affects them
And the politicians we elect thrive on knowing this
I'm Spartacus!
You wanna help me understand how the fuck this post fits into this at all? Because I don't see where anyone recommended any new spending or complained about having their own benefits cut.
For myself, there is a difference between someone putting in 20 to make a career in the military and having to put in their combat time (when a war comes along) compared to someone who volunteers for the sake of their country to go to "war" (as the enlistee sees it).
Nobody asks why you enlist when deciding who to send into combat. Forgive me, but that's a stupid distinction with no merit. What of the people who join during peacetime ready to go to combat if the time comes, and aren't "lucky" enough to see a war until near the end of their career?
The TEA Party is doing what besides endorsing the same old Republican incumbents?
No shit. I distinctly remember signing the combat clause in my enlistment papers that stated that I undersood that I might be KILLED in the line of duty. I expected to go to combat even in a support role - somebody has to fix the shit the grunts break - and lo and behold I spent my over seas time with 2 Combat Service Support Detachments. In the USMC even the supply jockeys and administrative clerks saddle up and walk patrol.
You never know what will happen. Just look at all the guys in reserve units over 40 years old that come home in an aluminum box.
Yup. And I distinctly remember the outcry when female soldiers in a fuel truck were attacked and killed in Iraq. Women didn't serve combat roles then, and I'm sure someone driving a truck of diesel oil didn't sign up for combat, but they certainly saw combat, actively combatted, and died honorably in combat.
Here is a news flash.
When you enlist in the military, there is a very good possibility that you can die, even if your MOS isn't in combat arms.
The military is a great career opportunity, the only downside is that the government has your ass and can do with you as they dam well please.
You're talking about these guys who see combat and may get their benefits cut (after putting their 20 in), what about all those poor fuckers were fucked up during training exercises and got the boot out due to medical? How many times did you read about some poor bloke who hurt or killed himself severely during night time jumps or during an aerial extraction and it was ONLY a training exercise?
I don't know if they still use the term REMF, but no crap you may hurt yourself if you're in the military during wartime.
Do I think the military should cut ANY benefits to those who made a career in the service? No. But I don't think you should differentiate between those who put 20 in and saw no combat compared to those who put 20 in and saw combat.
Meaning someone who joins the military as a career opportunity (particularly in peace time) could do so with the hopes of having never to see combat. ANYTIME you join, it's a roll of the dice, but you have to accept that fact when you get sworn in.
Joe - has anyone ever told you that you have a convoluted posting style?