Time to cut benefits for veterans? Washington Post writer says yes

[bucs90]

I?m an Army veteran, and my benefits are too generous - The Washington Post

This article is by a former Army Lt Col who says military benefits are far too generous. His arguments:

He says that half the military never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, and of those that did, a huge chunk never saw combat and/or aren't combat troops. In HIS words...he says being a police officer in the US is more dangerous than most military occupations.

He says a person can join at 18, and retire at 38, with a decent check and benefits for life. Even if you never left US soil.


Anyway, you can read the whole article for what it is. And the right wing Washington Post gladly put this piece out there. I had breakfast at my usual spot this morning (the old Alex's on Coleman Blvd in Charleston, where GOP candidates like Gingrich, Graham, Sanford, Santorum, and Perry all make a point to stop at as a local iconic spot)......and the conservative Post and Courier ran this op-ed today.

And they folks at the breakfast bar were all talking about it. Mostly a conservative crowd. And...sadly, they were saying "Well, he's right, we cant afford this anymore".


Military folks....I told you. I told you 3 years ago that it was a matter of time before the right wing would take its fiscal anger and turn it towards you guys. And...slowly but surely...here it comes.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Time to cut benefits to VA bureaucrats.

Along with the bureaucrats at FDA, HHS, HUD, DHS, TSA, and the rest of the Alphabet Soup Mafia.

 

[ogibillm]

i don't disagree with the guy, especially about retirement.

my thoughts though is that rather than cut benefits we should move away from an active duty force and more towards reserve and guard components. they're way cheaper in both pay and benefits.

 

[ogibillm]

Time to cut benefits to VA bureaucrats.

Along with the bureaucrats at FDA, HHS, HUD, DHS, TSA, and the rest of the Alphabet Soup Mafia.

the thing is they have seen cuts in their benefits, or at least raises in the amount they put towards things like their healthcare. they also don't get to retire at age 38 with full benefits either.

 

[KNB]

America should provide guns to homeless people. A lot of them are veterans.

 

[g5000]

It is easy for an O-5 to say retirement pay is too high.

I have heard the idea batted around to convert the military pension plan to be more like a 401k plan. What the tards who came up with that idea didn't think of is why would anyone join the military for shitty pay and shitty working conditions with long deployments away from home only to end up with a pension they could get in the civilian world, except with a smaller payout since they get paid for shit?

No one would enlist, especially now that a lot of the great training and experience you used to get is now all done by defense contractors.

 

[bucs90]

Time to cut benefits to VA bureaucrats.

Along with the bureaucrats at FDA, HHS, HUD, DHS, TSA, and the rest of the Alphabet Soup Mafia.

That's probably going to happen too, especially if the GOP takes power ever again. And the VA is already fucked up. Imagine if they cut pay and benefits for all the employees and high ranking VA directors.....who will quit, and then be replaced by less qualified folks.


The right wing is hell bent on dismantling the US government. All of it. And most of their local governments.

 

[bucs90]

It is easy for an O-5 to say retirement pay is too high.

I have heard the idea batted around to convert the military pension plan to be more like a 401k plan. What the tards who came up with that idea didn't think of is why would anyone join the military for shitty pay and shitty working conditions with long deployments away from home only to end up with a pension they could get in the civilian world, except with a smaller payout since they get paid for shit?

No one would enlist, especially now that a lot of the great training and experience you used to get is now all done by defense contractors.

Because you don't do it for the money; You do it because you love to serve.

Ok, just kidding. But that's the line being force fed down the throats of police who are seeing benefits, pay, pension cut, and the right wingers who support it. So, who wants shitty hours, working in bad environments where you may get shot, stabbed or stuck with an HIV-heroin syringe, be hated by pretty much everyone, for low pay, mediocre benefits and no real career advancement or skills that you can use outside of this career.......

So yeah. The police world never thought the Republican Party..especially locals...would turn against them. And it happened.

It is only a matter of time before it turns against the military too.

Just like how right wingers say they are pro law enforcement, they mean the verb, of arresting people. They aren't pro-police officers, as in the warm bodies who actually do the enforcement. Screw them and their pay and pension, but lock up them illegal aliens and drug addicts (but not renegade ranchers)

Well, they LOVE the military...or, the mission of the military. But do they love the female from inner city Atlanta who joined the Navy or Army to work as a support role in an office or something very non-combat, who sees an 18-38 year long career where she can retire and get pay and benefits for life afterwards? Well....the right wing is NOW starting to dig into it, and they don't like it.

 

[daveman]

It is easy for an O-5 to say retirement pay is too high.

I have heard the idea batted around to convert the military pension plan to be more like a 401k plan. What the tards who came up with that idea didn't think of is why would anyone join the military for shitty pay and shitty working conditions with long deployments away from home only to end up with a pension they could get in the civilian world, except with a smaller payout since they get paid for shit?

No one would enlist, especially now that a lot of the great training and experience you used to get is now all done by defense contractors.

Some years ago active duty were allowed to start participating in the Thrift Savings Plan, the fedgov's IRA. Participation is voluntary.

What is the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)?

The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is a retirement savings and investment plan for Federal employees and members of the uniformed services, including the Ready Reserve. It was established by Congress in the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 and offers the same types of savings and tax benefits that many private corporations offer their employees under 401(k) plans.

The TSP is a defined contribution plan, meaning that the retirement income you receive from your TSP account will depend on how much you (and your agency, if you are eligible to receive agency contributions) put into your account during your working years and the earnings accumulated over that time.​

 

[Howey]

I?m an Army veteran, and my benefits are too generous - The Washington Post

This article is by a former Army Lt Col who says military benefits are far too generous. His arguments:

He says that half the military never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, and of those that did, a huge chunk never saw combat and/or aren't combat troops. In HIS words...he says being a police officer in the US is more dangerous than most military occupations.

He says a person can join at 18, and retire at 38, with a decent check and benefits for life. Even if you never left US soil.


Anyway, you can read the whole article for what it is. And the right wing Washington Post gladly put this piece out there. I had breakfast at my usual spot this morning (the old Alex's on Coleman Blvd in Charleston, where GOP candidates like Gingrich, Graham, Sanford, Santorum, and Perry all make a point to stop at as a local iconic spot)......and the conservative Post and Courier ran this op-ed today.

And they folks at the breakfast bar were all talking about it. Mostly a conservative crowd. And...sadly, they were saying "Well, he's right, we cant afford this anymore".


Military folks....I told you. I told you 3 years ago that it was a matter of time before the right wing would take its fiscal anger and turn it towards you guys. And...slowly but surely...here it comes.

I come across these elitist assholes occasionally. One in a million who think only those who participated in battle deserve benefits. Among the worst are nuke sub engineers and Rangers, along with the SF.

This schmuck, however, is a part time reservist who's done nothing but spread the tea party gospel.

I found this reply to him on a military forum:

So after serving 20 years pretty much doing nothing but working in an office, you retire. 15 years later, and after over a decade of war, you decide to pen an article where you feel the benefits are too lavish because you personally didn't do enough to merit earning them.

The guys returning from Iraq and Afghanistan in pieces disagree with you. The people who've spent 3-4 years of their lives (or more) deployed to various shit holes and missing birthdays and anniversaries over the past decade also disagree with you.

If you feel guilty that you're getting nice perks for basically doing nothing, that's fine. Take that retirement and other monetary benefits and donate them to the Wounded Warrior Project. But to try and axe benefits for future generations who actually did deploy and face imminent danger while you've managed to enjoy those benefits for well over a decade is shameful. Not everyone (and in fact, very few) are able to enjoy a 20+ year career avoiding deployments and danger.

The mere fact that we sit ready to give our lives, even if we're a cook, supply tech or what have you, is worth having those benefits. And I find it baffling that people such as this guy will attack benefits given to people who, at a minimum, sat ready to serve, but they are mute when it comes to benefits being paid to people who haven't given anything to this nation.

Pretty much sums it up. Don't want your benefits? Don't accept them. Donate them to the Wounded Warriors Project.

 

[Howey]

Time to cut benefits to VA bureaucrats.

Along with the bureaucrats at FDA, HHS, HUD, DHS, TSA, and the rest of the Alphabet Soup Mafia.

the thing is they have seen cuts in their benefits, or at least raises in the amount they put towards things like their healthcare. they also don't get to retire at age 38 with full benefits either.

One can enlist at 18 and easily retire at 38.

 

[daveman]

Time to cut benefits to VA bureaucrats.

Along with the bureaucrats at FDA, HHS, HUD, DHS, TSA, and the rest of the Alphabet Soup Mafia.

That's probably going to happen too, especially if the GOP takes power ever again. And the VA is already fucked up. Imagine if they cut pay and benefits for all the employees and high ranking VA directors.....who will quit, and then be replaced by less qualified folks.


The right wing is hell bent on dismantling the US government. All of it. And most of their local governments.

Yes, because it's just too haaaaard to do anything about government waste.

 

[MrLiberty]

1. The guy is a moron

2. The Washington Post is far from right wing.

 

[Howey]

Here's another reply:
LOU MILLER: Military retirees have earned their benefits | Letters to the Editor | The Sun Herald

I take exception to Tom Slear's June 11 column ("Time to reduce some military benefits").

I enlisted in October 1960 and retired from the U.S. Air Force in August 1984.

Mr. Slear wrote that combat troops are supported by the "logistical tail" and those support troops are located "in a well-guarded, reasonably comfortable bivouac area." I guess Mr. Slear is not aware support troops were also victims of suicide bombers or rockets in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan. When they strike, suicide bombers and rockets do not differentiate between combat and support personnel.

Military service places demands on personnel and their families which are not experienced in normal civilian life (firefighters and police are the closest). One overriding constitutional responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the defense of the nation. Our leaders should provide all funding necessary to provide the armed forces with the equipment they need and the pay and benefits they and their families deserve -- no matter whether they are combat or support. If you made military service a career, your retired pay and benefits are especially important because when you retire you are entering the civilian workforce much later in life.

Already, there have been discussions in Washington calling for basic pay caps, reduction of commissaries and changes to the Tricare system -- all detrimental to military personnel, their families and retirees.

THIS is what the republicans and tea party in congress want to do.

 

[daveman]

Time to cut benefits to VA bureaucrats.

Along with the bureaucrats at FDA, HHS, HUD, DHS, TSA, and the rest of the Alphabet Soup Mafia.

the thing is they have seen cuts in their benefits, or at least raises in the amount they put towards things like their healthcare. they also don't get to retire at age 38 with full benefits either.

One can enlist at 18 and easily retire at 38.

Good luck living on a 20-year retirement, though. If you want to earn a "living pension", you gotta stay to the upper 20's or all the way to 30.

 

[bucs90]

I?m an Army veteran, and my benefits are too generous - The Washington Post

This article is by a former Army Lt Col who says military benefits are far too generous. His arguments:

He says that half the military never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, and of those that did, a huge chunk never saw combat and/or aren't combat troops. In HIS words...he says being a police officer in the US is more dangerous than most military occupations.

He says a person can join at 18, and retire at 38, with a decent check and benefits for life. Even if you never left US soil.


Anyway, you can read the whole article for what it is. And the right wing Washington Post gladly put this piece out there. I had breakfast at my usual spot this morning (the old Alex's on Coleman Blvd in Charleston, where GOP candidates like Gingrich, Graham, Sanford, Santorum, and Perry all make a point to stop at as a local iconic spot)......and the conservative Post and Courier ran this op-ed today.

And they folks at the breakfast bar were all talking about it. Mostly a conservative crowd. And...sadly, they were saying "Well, he's right, we cant afford this anymore".


Military folks....I told you. I told you 3 years ago that it was a matter of time before the right wing would take its fiscal anger and turn it towards you guys. And...slowly but surely...here it comes.

I come across these elitist assholes occasionally. One in a million who think only those who participated in battle deserve benefits. Among the worst are nuke sub engineers and Rangers, along with the SF.

This schmuck, however, is a part time reservist who's done nothing but spread the tea party gospel.

I found this reply to him on a military forum:

So after serving 20 years pretty much doing nothing but working in an office, you retire. 15 years later, and after over a decade of war, you decide to pen an article where you feel the benefits are too lavish because you personally didn't do enough to merit earning them.

The guys returning from Iraq and Afghanistan in pieces disagree with you. The people who've spent 3-4 years of their lives (or more) deployed to various shit holes and missing birthdays and anniversaries over the past decade also disagree with you.

If you feel guilty that you're getting nice perks for basically doing nothing, that's fine. Take that retirement and other monetary benefits and donate them to the Wounded Warrior Project. But to try and axe benefits for future generations who actually did deploy and face imminent danger while you've managed to enjoy those benefits for well over a decade is shameful. Not everyone (and in fact, very few) are able to enjoy a 20+ year career avoiding deployments and danger.

The mere fact that we sit ready to give our lives, even if we're a cook, supply tech or what have you, is worth having those benefits. And I find it baffling that people such as this guy will attack benefits given to people who, at a minimum, sat ready to serve, but they are mute when it comes to benefits being paid to people who haven't given anything to this nation.

Pretty much sums it up. Don't want your benefits? Don't accept them. Donate them to the Wounded Warriors Project.

Yep, couldn't agree more.

There are a few core functions of government, and do think the government does a lot that isn't part of that. BUT.....there are some that are just critical.

- A military to protect from foreign invasion, or terrorist plots and camps overseas. US citizens shouldn't have to sit and worry about what is plotting against them overseas. Our wonderful military protects us from that, and they deserve all they get plus more.

- A police force to protect us from domestic threats. A US citizen should be able to call 911 and get help protecting their home and family from criminals; God forbid some cracked out gang members with guns try to do a home invasion, or someone gets taken hostage in a bank robbery, or someone gets shot in a drug gang crossfire.

Both of these need brave men and women willing to pick up a gun, and defend US citizens from various threats.

And the right wing has turned against one of them, happily supporting cuts in pay and benefits and pension. The other? Well, they are sniffing round the military's benefits package, and they see and smell "waste".

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Time to cut benefits to VA bureaucrats.

Along with the bureaucrats at FDA, HHS, HUD, DHS, TSA, and the rest of the Alphabet Soup Mafia.

the thing is they have seen cuts in their benefits, or at least raises in the amount they put towards things like their healthcare. they also don't get to retire at age 38 with full benefits either.

Not enough.

Let them save and invest like the rest of us. No more pensions and bennies for life.

They are servants, not our masters.

 

[daveman]

Here's another reply:
LOU MILLER: Military retirees have earned their benefits | Letters to the Editor | The Sun Herald

I take exception to Tom Slear's June 11 column ("Time to reduce some military benefits").

I enlisted in October 1960 and retired from the U.S. Air Force in August 1984.

Mr. Slear wrote that combat troops are supported by the "logistical tail" and those support troops are located "in a well-guarded, reasonably comfortable bivouac area." I guess Mr. Slear is not aware support troops were also victims of suicide bombers or rockets in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan. When they strike, suicide bombers and rockets do not differentiate between combat and support personnel.

Military service places demands on personnel and their families which are not experienced in normal civilian life (firefighters and police are the closest). One overriding constitutional responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the defense of the nation. Our leaders should provide all funding necessary to provide the armed forces with the equipment they need and the pay and benefits they and their families deserve -- no matter whether they are combat or support. If you made military service a career, your retired pay and benefits are especially important because when you retire you are entering the civilian workforce much later in life.

I, too, find amusing the attitude that only combat troops are worth anything.

Hey, Johnny Combat -- you can't do your job...AT ALL...without support troops.

Already, there have been discussions in Washington calling for basic pay caps, reduction of commissaries and changes to the Tricare system -- all detrimental to military personnel, their families and retirees.

THIS is what the republicans and tea party in congress want to do.

I agree, if by "the republicans and tea party in congress" you mean "the White House".

White House: Raise Fees, Cut Pay, Housing, and Commissary : MOAA

The administration unveiled its FY 2015 defense budget request on March 4. The proposal calls for a $495.6 billion budget, a top line that is virtually unchanged from the past two years.

--

The budget includes cuts to military compensation and healthcare benefits, a 20 percent cut in headquarters operating budgets, a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round in FY 2017, and $159.3 billion in modernization and recapitalization of equipment and facilities.​

That's not the GOP and the TEA Party -- that's Obama wanting to cut pay and benefits. After all, the money to give all those new illegals free shit has to come from somewhere, right?

 

[CaféAuLait]

I?m an Army veteran, and my benefits are too generous - The Washington Post

This article is by a former Army Lt Col who says military benefits are far too generous. His arguments:

He says that half the military never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, and of those that did, a huge chunk never saw combat and/or aren't combat troops. In HIS words...he says being a police officer in the US is more dangerous than most military occupations.

He says a person can join at 18, and retire at 38, with a decent check and benefits for life. Even if you never left US soil.


Anyway, you can read the whole article for what it is. And the right wing Washington Post gladly put this piece out there. I had breakfast at my usual spot this morning (the old Alex's on Coleman Blvd in Charleston, where GOP candidates like Gingrich, Graham, Sanford, Santorum, and Perry all make a point to stop at as a local iconic spot)......and the conservative Post and Courier ran this op-ed today.

And they folks at the breakfast bar were all talking about it. Mostly a conservative crowd. And...sadly, they were saying "Well, he's right, we cant afford this anymore".


Military folks....I told you. I told you 3 years ago that it was a matter of time before the right wing would take its fiscal anger and turn it towards you guys. And...slowly but surely...here it comes.

Forfeiting 1 percent of military retirement pay would not shortchange those wounded and disabled in combat, the ones most deserving of benefits

How does this guy know? He is a fully healthy man who never saw a day of combat and retired from service in 2001 with only 5 years active duty, the rest 2 days a month.

What is the median rank in the military?

That would be E-5, Lt. Col. the soldiers who are eligible for foodstamps. So why not give your own money away instead of making claims you have no clue about? Nothing but an officer willing to give away what does not belong to him. One might think he was looking for a bullet on his OER, since retired I guess he is looking for a little shit on his chin.

 

[1776]

Of course the shitstain retired in "2001" yet talks about most military didn't serve during a "war."

The idiot got out before the shit hit the fan or he was so irrelevant that the Army released him when they were taking anyone with the pulse after 9-11.