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

[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.

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?

Wrongo. It's congress and the sequester they shut down the government to get.

Faced with a somewhat fixed topline and the full impact of sequestration still looming for 2016, the Pentagon’s budget is looking at all accounts, and includes shifting personnel costs onto the backs of servicemembers to free up funding for other programs.

 

[1776]

So according to the piece of shit behind that article, someone that spends their entire career stateside based on their job is not worthy of a retirement check.

My father worked with ICBMs...the last time I checked ICBMs are not in other friendly countries, they are in the upper states like MT, ND and WY. So someone works with ICBMs for 20 years defending this nation while living in the frozen tundra of the US is not worthy of a retirement check???

My father actually deployed for 1 year to work GLCM in Europe but that system doesn't exist anymore for missile nuke guys. If you do nukes in the Air Force, you are going to live in the frozen tundra or MO and LA here stateside.

As someone that deployed 4 times for OEF after 9-11, I understand the importance of troops working overseas and back here. I understand the importance of every job in the military despite the notion "operators" like me run the military. Sure those of us that drop bombs, fly the planes, drive the ships, drive the tanks, shoot bullets....get the glory but someone working back here doing intel work or cyber work is just as important.

I always tell someone to "shut the fuck up" when they trash someone's "easy" job in the military, the entire team works together not just the prima donna guys on the frontlines. This op-ed author is a piece of shit picking and choosing who is worthy of a retirement check.

Sure I've seen my share of fat support jobs personnel, but that is the fault of their NCOs and officers not punishing them and kicking them out. Many of them are usually women and it is not PC in the military these days to kick out fat women....

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

You actually could have had a decent topic of discussion here until you ruined it with your fabricated partisan bullshit, but I suspected that would be the case once I got near the end. All you ever do anymore is create troll threads.

 

[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.

You actually could have had a decent topic of discussion here until you ruined it with your fabricated partisan bullshit, but I suspected that would be the case once I got near the end. All you ever do anymore is create troll threads.

The "troll" part you don't like...is me having that decent discussion you wanted.

Republicans need to realize that our governments, at all levels, have people in them to do REAL work, hard work, dangerous work, and its done to protect innocent Americans from real threats. Whether its a gang member on the corner looking for a victim, or a terrorist camp overseas plotting attacks.

People are willing to risk their lives to do those dangerous jobs. BUT...they are regular folks, who want a good paycheck, and some stable assurance that once they get older, too old to be kicking in doors or getting into shootouts or marching through hell to engage the Taliban......that society will give them a decent retirement and healthcare.

Door kickers and soldiers and those like them...they don't do that shit into their 60's like a civilian can do at a desk job or in the corporate world. That's why we've always given military, police and firemen a great retirement plan and benefits.

Some, mostly hard right wingers, want to begin slashing those "sweetheart" government employee packages. They started with firefighters and cops. Now...they are flirting around with doing it to the military, and its SHAMEFUL.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Seems like I've been around this bush before.
I was drafted. Went into the Army being paid less than $80/month. Sent to Vietnam where I was "awarded" hazardous duty (combat) pay of an additional $65/month (waay less than I have to pay the government these days if I choose to live dangerously by not fastening my seatbelt). Was discharged having been rode hard and put up wet (and have never fully recovered from same) to find that my lovely young bride and new baby had gotten tired of waiting for me. I don't qualify for retirement.
The good LTC is not the first I have run into who is an idiot.
You get what you pay for. What is your freedom worth?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

That guy would be laughed out of any VA hospital in the country, there are a butt load of those service and support people, that he said lived relatively comfortable lives, that were killed and are missing limbs from Iraq and Afghanistan. In a phrase this weekend warrior hasn't a clue what he's talking about and I know my congress critter would laugh in his face.

 

[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, 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.

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?

Wrongo. It's congress and the sequester they shut down the government to get.

Faced with a somewhat fixed topline and the full impact of sequestration still looming for 2016, the Pentagon’s budget is looking at all accounts, and includes shifting personnel costs onto the backs of servicemembers to free up funding for other programs.

Ahh, I see your problem. You're functionally illiterate.

Nothing to be ashamed of. Just tell people you went to public school.

 

[daveman]

So according to the piece of shit behind that article, someone that spends their entire career stateside based on their job is not worthy of a retirement check.

My father worked with ICBMs...the last time I checked ICBMs are not in other friendly countries, they are in the upper states like MT, ND and WY. So someone works with ICBMs for 20 years defending this nation while living in the frozen tundra of the US is not worthy of a retirement check???

My father actually deployed for 1 year to work GLCM in Europe but that system doesn't exist anymore for missile nuke guys. If you do nukes in the Air Force, you are going to live in the frozen tundra or MO and LA here stateside.

As someone that deployed 4 times for OEF after 9-11, I understand the importance of troops working overseas and back here. I understand the importance of every job in the military despite the notion "operators" like me run the military. Sure those of us that drop bombs, fly the planes, drive the ships, drive the tanks, shoot bullets....get the glory but someone working back here doing intel work or cyber work is just as important.

I always tell someone to "shut the fuck up" when they trash someone's "easy" job in the military, the entire team works together not just the prima donna guys on the frontlines. This op-ed author is a piece of shit picking and choosing who is worthy of a retirement check.

Sure I've seen my share of fat support jobs personnel, but that is the fault of their NCOs and officers not punishing them and kicking them out. Many of them are usually women and it is not PC in the military these days to kick out fat women....

I was 3E072, Electrical Power Production. Stateside, I made sure critical facilities had reliable backup power generators and the runway-mounted aircraft arresting gear was ready to stop tailhook-equipped aircraft that couldn't safely stop on their own.

Deployed, I operated and maintained power plants of multiple 750kW generators, and maintained portable versions of the arresting gear. I've stopped 18 aircraft with 24 aircrew on board. I've repaired generators that previous rotations deemed unrepairable.

I worked at the Installations Directorate at AFCENT, being subject-matter expert on Bare Base/Harvest Falcon assets (all the shelters, power generation and distribution, water treatment and storage, and HVAC equipment that make up a tent city) and liaison between the deployed Civil Engineers and the Logistics Directorate at AFCENT, managing a fleet of assets worth over a billion dollars.

I was a support troop. And I'm damn proud of what I did for this nation. And no retired O-5 can take that away from me. He'd be far better off saying, "Thank you for your service, Sergeant" and then shutting the hell up.

 

[ogibillm]

So according to the piece of shit behind that article, someone that spends their entire career stateside based on their job is not worthy of a retirement check.

i didn't get that from the article at all.

These jobs are important. Battles are won based on logistics just as much as tactics. But these support jobs aren’t particularly hazardous. Police officers, firefighters and construction workers face more danger than Army public affairs specialists, Air Force mechanics, Marine Corps legal assistants, Navy finance clerks or headquarters staff officers.

what i get from that is while nobody is saying the cook isn't important, it's tough to argue that the cook in the army is worthy of retiring at 38 with lifetime health insurance and a slew of other benefits because they chose to sling hash in a dfac instead of a middle school lunch room.

he's telling us that we need to realistically dismiss the idea that every soldier and vet is a gun-slinging hero and accept the reality of what the armed services largely are.

the thing is the people that do know that reality have a vested interest in maintaining the myth

 

[Dems_R_Commies]

WaPo is Pravda - run by Communist............

Communist Democrats want a weak military so they can't be opposed..........

"Howey" are you a gay????

Our military and vets have earned and deserve at least THREE TIMES what they get...........

If we have to cut something let's cut welfare, ObamaCare, and Secret Service protection for former Presidents............

 

[daveman]

So according to the piece of shit behind that article, someone that spends their entire career stateside based on their job is not worthy of a retirement check.

i didn't get that from the article at all.

These jobs are important. Battles are won based on logistics just as much as tactics. But these support jobs aren’t particularly hazardous. Police officers, firefighters and construction workers face more danger than Army public affairs specialists, Air Force mechanics, Marine Corps legal assistants, Navy finance clerks or headquarters staff officers.

what i get from that is while nobody is saying the cook isn't important, it's tough to argue that the cook in the army is worthy of retiring at 38 with lifetime health insurance and a slew of other benefits because they chose to sling hash in a dfac instead of a middle school lunch room.

he's telling us that we need to realistically dismiss the idea that every soldier and vet is a gun-slinging hero and accept the reality of what the armed services largely are.

the thing is the people that do know that reality have a vested interest in maintaining the myth

And he's wrong. If that cook gave up 20 years of his life, separated from his family for months at a time, worked every shift, for rotten pay -- he deserves his pension and his benefits.

Period.

 

[ogibillm]

So according to the piece of shit behind that article, someone that spends their entire career stateside based on their job is not worthy of a retirement check.

i didn't get that from the article at all.

These jobs are important. Battles are won based on logistics just as much as tactics. But these support jobs aren’t particularly hazardous. Police officers, firefighters and construction workers face more danger than Army public affairs specialists, Air Force mechanics, Marine Corps legal assistants, Navy finance clerks or headquarters staff officers.

what i get from that is while nobody is saying the cook isn't important, it's tough to argue that the cook in the army is worthy of retiring at 38 with lifetime health insurance and a slew of other benefits because they chose to sling hash in a dfac instead of a middle school lunch room.

he's telling us that we need to realistically dismiss the idea that every soldier and vet is a gun-slinging hero and accept the reality of what the armed services largely are.

the thing is the people that do know that reality have a vested interest in maintaining the myth

And he's wrong. If that cook gave up 20 years of his life, separated from his family for months at a time, worked every shift, for rotten pay -- he deserves his pension and his benefits.

Period.

and the author doesn't argue that he doesn't deserve some pension and benefits in fact he the author of the article flat out says the pot should be sweetened for our volunteers. he just believes that the benefits should not be sacred cows, and that realistically adjustments, like a decrease of 1% in the increase of pension payments for retirees under a certain age is not a draconian crazy adjustment, or that small increases in contributions towards health care that is still drastically cheaper than anything anyone in the private sector is getting should not be out of the question when looking at ways to cut back on spending.

and i dont know if you knew this, but there are lots of people working in food prep that aren't exactly bringing home the bacon or working great hours. they also aren't getting housing allowances, free health care, or any of the other benefits, let alone the retirement.

 

[jasonnfree]

So according to the piece of shit behind that article, someone that spends their entire career stateside based on their job is not worthy of a retirement check.

i didn't get that from the article at all.

These jobs are important. Battles are won based on logistics just as much as tactics. But these support jobs aren’t particularly hazardous. Police officers, firefighters and construction workers face more danger than Army public affairs specialists, Air Force mechanics, Marine Corps legal assistants, Navy finance clerks or headquarters staff officers.

what i get from that is while nobody is saying the cook isn't important, it's tough to argue that the cook in the army is worthy of retiring at 38 with lifetime health insurance and a slew of other benefits because they chose to sling hash in a dfac instead of a middle school lunch room.

he's telling us that we need to realistically dismiss the idea that every soldier and vet is a gun-slinging hero and accept the reality of what the armed services largely are.

the thing is the people that do know that reality have a vested interest in maintaining the myth

Our government doesn't mind paying hundreds of dollars a day to contractors that sling hash and drive trucks, though, jobs that were traditionally done by servicemen in the past. This is your free market capitalists conditioning you to believe nobody deserves a retirement anymore. Sounds like you're buying into it too.

 

[9thIDdoc]

So according to the piece of shit behind that article, someone that spends their entire career stateside based on their job is not worthy of a retirement check.

i didn't get that from the article at all.

These jobs are important. Battles are won based on logistics just as much as tactics. But these support jobs aren’t particularly hazardous. Police officers, firefighters and construction workers face more danger than Army public affairs specialists, Air Force mechanics, Marine Corps legal assistants, Navy finance clerks or headquarters staff officers.

what i get from that is while nobody is saying the cook isn't important, it's tough to argue that the cook in the army is worthy of retiring at 38 with lifetime health insurance and a slew of other benefits because they chose to sling hash in a dfac instead of a middle school lunch room.

he's telling us that we need to realistically dismiss the idea that every soldier and vet is a gun-slinging hero and accept the reality of what the armed services largely are.

the thing is the people that do know that reality have a vested interest in maintaining the myth

No, you are the one who doesn't get it. The myth is that only those who kill are heroes.
One of my two best friends in Vietnam was a cook. He died there. Stop pretending you have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Politico]

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.

It's not that simple and you know it.

 

[Stephanie]

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.

so he checked everyone's political registrations to know they were mostly CONSERVATIVE....HOW DO YOU KNOW HE was EVEN A VET? Did you check out his enlistment papers? you were at this breakfast bar? you are disgusting USING some article to PUT DOWN OTHERS over some person's assumptions and his OPONION piece in the WashingtonCompost...He want's to give his money back to the Government, charity or up his ass he's free to do it...BUT HOW DARE you post this just to dump on others...you're just miserable human being

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

Let's see, I joined the Army at 18, went to Viet Nam - got wounded 11 months later and walk with a limp to this day. I have killed enough human beings to fill a school bus twice over. I lost some 20 close friends in a war that I was accused of killing babies by the Nazi left (whom I might add, didn't have the guts to fight themselves - just armchair quarterback)

After the war, I began service at embassies around the world until my retirement in 1986.

A Congressman serves in his posh office being paid 20 times MORE. than I EVER
made, and after a short term of service, receives benefits for life.

Today, men and women, unable to find work, lay at home for 2 or more years, living off the American taxpayer and then, await this "president" to extend their "benefits" so they might lay around the house for yet another year.

And this "Colonel" claims that we don't deserve to be treated fairly for our service. A "Colonel" who probably never served a day in a combat theater, nor commanded men in combat.

I call shenanigans here.

 

[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.

Let's see, I joined the Army at 18, went to Viet Nam - got wounded 11 months later and walk with a limp to this day. I have killed enough human beings to fill a school bus twice over. I lost some 20 close friends in a war that I was accused of killing babies by the Nazi left (whom I might add, didn't have the guts to fight themselves - just armchair quarterback)

After the war, I began service at embassies around the world until my retirement in 1986.

A Congressman serves in his posh office being paid 20 times MORE. than I EVER
made, and after a short term of service, receives benefits for life.

Today, men and women, unable to find work, lay at home for 2 or more years, living off the American taxpayer and then, await this "president" to extend their "benefits" so they might lay around the house for yet another year.

And this "Colonel" claims that we don't deserve to be treated fairly for our service. A "Colonel" who probably never served a day in a combat theater, nor commanded men in combat.

I call shenanigans here.

Ding, ding, ding, give that man a Kupie Doll! The Col NEVER spent a day in combat, not once, only 5 years active duty. The rest was as a weekend warrior, he retired right after 9-11.

I find this thread funny, "Washington Post Writer says...." and, who cares? lol Washington Post writers also have written articles critical of Obama- should they be viewed with the same reverence as this LT. Col? I'm willing to bet the only ones that will be held as gospel like this article- will be the articles which praise Obama.

Who knows if this guy is a liberal or a pub, funny how this has turned into a thread to attack the right wing for this guys op-ed.

 

[Howey]

WaPo is Pravda - run by Communist............

Communist Democrats want a weak military so they can't be opposed..........

"Howey" are you a gay????

Our military and vets have earned and deserve at least THREE TIMES what they get...........

If we have to cut something let's cut welfare, ObamaCare, and Secret Service protection for former Presidents............

No, of course not. Why would you think that Marcus?

 

[daveman]

i didn't get that from the article at all.

what i get from that is while nobody is saying the cook isn't important, it's tough to argue that the cook in the army is worthy of retiring at 38 with lifetime health insurance and a slew of other benefits because they chose to sling hash in a dfac instead of a middle school lunch room.

he's telling us that we need to realistically dismiss the idea that every soldier and vet is a gun-slinging hero and accept the reality of what the armed services largely are.

the thing is the people that do know that reality have a vested interest in maintaining the myth

And he's wrong. If that cook gave up 20 years of his life, separated from his family for months at a time, worked every shift, for rotten pay -- he deserves his pension and his benefits.

Period.

and the author doesn't argue that he doesn't deserve some pension and benefits in fact he the author of the article flat out says the pot should be sweetened for our volunteers. he just believes that the benefits should not be sacred cows, and that realistically adjustments, like a decrease of 1% in the increase of pension payments for retirees under a certain age is not a draconian crazy adjustment, or that small increases in contributions towards health care that is still drastically cheaper than anything anyone in the private sector is getting should not be out of the question when looking at ways to cut back on spending.

and i dont know if you knew this, but there are lots of people working in food prep that aren't exactly bringing home the bacon or working great hours. they also aren't getting housing allowances, free health care, or any of the other benefits, let alone the retirement.

Yeah. McDonald's doesn't send crew members to Afghanistan for 6 months, either.