Military pension cuts now unsure; changes likely
Source: AP-Excite
By PAULINE JELINEK
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon's top civilian says it's time to tame burgeoning military personnel costs, but he's facing a test of wills with the nation's powerful veterans groups, which want no cut in their benefits.
Veterans groups are fighting curbs in annual pension increases for military retirees under age 62 that are part of the new budget deal passed by Congress last week and awaiting President Barack Obama's signature. After a barrage of protests from the military community, lawmakers said they'll review the cut next year and possibly reverse it. But Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday that reform of military compensation can't be avoided.
"We all know that we need to slow cost growth in military compensation," Hagel told a Pentagon press conference. "We know that many proposals will be controversial and unpopular. ... Tough decisions will have to be made."
Retirees want the belt-tightening done elsewhere.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20131223/DAARUV9O3.html
In this Dec. 19, 2013, photo, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel takes questions as he briefs reporters at the Pentagon in Washington. Veterans groups are fighting part of the new budget deal signed into law Dec. 20 that curbs annual pension increases for military retirees under age 62. After a barrage of protests from the military community, lawmakers said they'll review the cut next year and possibly reverse it.(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
loudsue
(14,087 posts)This shit has to stop.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Those Generals and Admirals getting their huge retirement pays wont be affected. It will be the mid to lower level retirees who suffer the most from these cuts in their retirement pay.
Why don't they make some tough decisions on the backs of the Military contractors? Cut back on the contracts to Halliburton and GE. It's always, always the people who get hurt with these austerity cuts.
They lured young people into the military, to fight the wars with promises of decent retirement pay. They kept people in their ranks for years because the military members believed they would get an inflation proof retirement. Once they used these people. Once they took their youth to fight their wars, then Oh too bad. We really didn't mean you would get your full retirement pay. We really didn't mean you could expect that pay to be of much value.
Slow the growth of the military on the backs of GE CEOs not on the backs of soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen.
ldlew
(18 posts)This military retirement is about more than a pay cut. If you want to save money for the Contractors and private gain then all you have to do is get rid of the volunteer force and then start the draft again. The stated objective is never the real reason. When I first went into the Military, 1969, I got 69.00 USD a month. Just think of monetary saving they see by starting the draft again. Its about bodies for useless War and slaughter of the working class and lining their pockets.
Scalded Nun
(1,236 posts)Wind down any wars and the first things to get a hatchet job are military personnel sizing and compensation.
I agree the DoD budget is way too big, but military pay is not even in the top 4 reasons. How about...
1. Huge payments to contractors who provide little in return in relation to the money paid.
2. Weapons systems that no one wants/are not needed.
3. 'Exploratory' forays into other countries where we have no business being at all.
4. Military payments to other countries (bribes/extortion/etc.) to let us use their airspace, airports, land routes.
We are literally talking hundreds of billions of $$ annually.
When I see anyone in authority addressing any of the above areas I will believe someone at the top actually cares about costs within DoD.
Anything else is just the old 'smoke and mirrors' that has become all too familiar,
Igel
(35,320 posts)$ in Thousands
Total Budget
Military Personnel
2012 enacted 153,111,873
2013 request 149,171,893
Operation and Maintenance
2012 enacted 283,989,327
2013 request 272,745,422
Procurement
2012 enacted 120,579,571
2013 request 108,510,595
RDT&E
2012 enacted 71,902,070
2013 request 69,653,283
Military Construction
2012 enacted 11,366,701
2013 request 9,571,929
Family Housing
2012 enacted 1,682,946
2013 request 1,650,781
Revolving and Management Funds
2012 enacted 3,075,098
2013 request 2,627,684
Don't know if VA is in the #s. Overseas funding is often routed through different budgets.
Op/Management is the largest budget item--fuel, rent, maintenance, and I'm sure that a lot of that is contractors (who do things like sweep floors, IT systems, service HVAC, etc.). Contractors are often people, too. Paying military personnel is next. After that procurement then RD&E, both of which also include paying people (for building the equipment or designing stuff from socks to satellites).
OCO for 2012 was something like $54 billion, $2.5 billion for Iraq and the rest for Aghanistan. Those numbers are included in the 2012 budget, mostly under the three largest categories.
http://dcmo.defense.gov/publications/documents/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
Part of the materials prepared for and presented to Congress.
HoosierCowboy
(561 posts)....change in the growth of military compensation until we stop using our soldiers as Corporate Mercenaries. Mercs, whether you love them or hate them make $30,000 a month and the demand has not slowed down.
Bringing back the Draft to restock for future wars of Corporate Acquisition won't work either, that ended when the last grunt left Nam in 75.
Maybe we should draft CEO's to fight their own wars....
ldlew
(18 posts)The draft worked in the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korean War, and Vietnam. Selective Service is still operational. A simple law change and it is back in place. People might fight fight it but we live in a police state.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The problem with a draftee army (and want I mean by that is an army were most of the enlisted ranks are drafted, not used to fill in volunteers see side note below for more details), is such an army tends to be one with the people. The problem with such an army is if the Ruling Elite wants to go to war and the people do not. Such a Universal Service Army reflects the will of the people, either by NOT showing up, (reported to have happened at least twice during legendary Roman history, history we have only by stories that state that in the past the plebeians of Rome left Rome and founded their own city, do to the Patricians refusing to agree to their demands. To get the Plebeians back the Patricians agreed to those demands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessio_plebis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_the_Orders
Historically, Draftee armies are as good as Volunteer armies (and often better). The biggest problem with Draftee Armies is motivation. If the Draftee Army believes in the War, they are as motivated as any Volunteer (in fact often MORE Motivated, they want to go home and to go home means finishing the war). Furthermore since the Army can select who they want the quality of the Army as a whole increases. Thus man for man a Universal Service Army that believes in the war they are in will defeat any Volunteer army of the same size, equipment, training, Doctrine, leadership, organization and supplies.
The problem with Draftee Armies is when the people (and thus the Draftees) no longer support the war. When this happens the army rapidly declines (For example the German Army after the Summer of 1918 when it became clear the war was lost, the US Army in Vietnam when it became clear that the majority of Americans no longer supported the war in Vietnam and the classic example, the Third Punic War where the Roman Army took three years to take Carthage do to the Roman Army asking why are we fighting Carthage when Hannibal has been dead for over a Generation?). In all three cases the Draftee Army was replaced by a Smaller Volunteer Army, The key was the Army had to be small for only a limited number of people wanted to volunteer to serve in the army (This especially hurt the German Army during the 1920s for their Doctrine had changed during 1914-1918 giving more and more power to NCOs and away from officers, this require good quality NCO who were NOT enlisting into the German Army in the 1920s, thus the quick switch back to a Draftee Army in the 1930s when the German Army was expanded again).
The Roman Army replaced its Draftee/Militia Army with an all Volunteer force and then started it move from a Republic to a Monarchy (The New All Volunteer Army was first form in 107 BC, but 82 BC Sulla had used it to gain total Dictatorship over Rome and by 48 BC when Caesar defeated Pompey. had used it to take complete control over Rome). No efforts were attempted to review the old Militia/ Volunteer Army after Sulla for that meant giving power to the lower classes.
The Roman Militia Army had defeated Hannibal in 202 BC and destroyed Macedonia in the Second Macedonia War (Which ended in 196 BC). Over the next 50 years the Roman Elite used the Roman Militia Army to loot the Mediterranean (This including destroying Macedonia in 168 BC and making Greece under Roman control) . Finally the Roman Elite used the Militia Army to destroy Carthage in 146 BC (and what remained of Macedonia in 148 BC). Thus destroying what was left of any real opposition to Roman rule in the Mediterranean. Finally the Roman people said enough was enough, they first show this opposition during the Third Punic and Fourth Macedonia war (Both around 146 BC) where the Roman Army was like the US Army in Vietnam from 1968-1972, the troops going through the motions only, not caring if Rome won or lost the war their were fighting but just trying to survive the war.
This "walking" with their feet by the men of Rome who made up the Roman Militia continued through the Gracchi (Who the plebeians supported to the extent the Roman Elite killed both Gracchi Brothers whose crime was just wanting to enforce existing law restricting law ownership to what the law permitted and distributing what land was held in excess to landless Romans). The Roman elite were much more afraid of their own people after 133 BC and thus the Gracchi had to die, for the Gracchi aim was to give land to the Plebeians and away from the Ruling Elite. The Plebeians of Rome became so fear by the Roman Elite, more feared then any foreign enemy of Rome so when Maius formed the first Mercenary Roman Army in 107 BC, the Roman Elite wanted more for it was the proper tool to loot the Mediterranean AND take what power the Roman Plebeians had left as the backbone of the Roman Army.
This anti-plebeian policy continued throughout the Empire, even as the Empire fell, the Roman Elite preferred German barbarians as soldiers than arming they own peasants. Finally when the Empire was reduced to the hump of Modern Greece and Turkey do to the Islamic Invasion of the 600s (and the Germanic Invasions of the 400s) the Empire finally went back to a Militia Type Army and with that Army survived the Islamic Invasion, outlasted the Caliphate, outlasted Charlemagne's Empire, the Bulgarian Empire, the Serbian Empire and even the Rus kingdom of Kiev, till the final blow to the Empire was made during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 AD (Though the real damage had been done at Mazakurt in 1084 AD where the Empire lost to the Seljuk Turks what is now central Turkey). This later Roman Empire is often called Byzantine Empire but if you go by the date of the Re-adoption of a Militia/Draftee Army. it lasted almost as long as the much larger Roman Empire of the Classical period. The Byzantine Empire only felled as it followed the foot steps of the Roman Republic and took land from its peasants and turned to mercenaries to fight its wars.
Furthermore the Byzantine Empire had enemies on all sides, any one of them capable of conquering the Byzantine Empire. This is unlike the Roman Empire of the Classical period that had no real enemies except its internal enemies of its own peasants. From Hannibal to the Goths Rome was never besieged or threatened by Foreign Armies, while the much smaller Byzantine Empire's Capital of Constantinople was besieged dozens of of times and only taken in 1204 AD.
Rome, after it embraced mercenaries, other than Caesar's Conquest of Gaul and Claudius Conquest of Britain 100 years later, Rome conquered NO MAJOR new territory after 107 BC (The large wars were who was to Rule the Empire NOT to expand the Empire). For example Rome made Egypt Roman Territory as opposed to being Roman "Allies" but that was just a matter of degree not new Conquest, Egypt had been given to Rome BEFORE Caesar took in in 48 BC, so Egypt was not even Conquered. Augustus tried to take Germany, but failed and never tried again for he did not want to raise the Army needed to do the job. Judea was crushed for REVOLTING against Rome in 70 and 132 BC thus not a new Conquest (Judea had first come under Roman Control under Pompey the Great but even that Conquest was more to secure Egypt's border than to take a major new territory for Rome). This tendency NOT to conquer INCREASED under the Empire as the Roman Empire REDUCED its Army requirements by REFUSING to do anything more than defend Roman territory (The major exception to this was Trajan who took what is now Iraq around 112 AD, but his Successor Hadrian gave it right back).
Even when the Romans in the 400s turned to German Tribes as Soldiers, these were used to keep the Roman Peasants from revolting then to conquer or retake "lost" Roman Territory to the "Barbarians". Most people in Gaul considered themselves Romans for at least 100 years after what we now called the Roman Empire in the West had fallen, this was more true of what is now Spain and Italy. This was true as late as Charlemagne time (i.e. around 800 AD). The attempt to re-take the West by the Eastern Empire under Justinian (c 540 AD) was do to opposition to proposed land reforms in the West by the Barbarian overlords (Most land in the 500s were still owned by Roman elites even as technically the areas were now ruled by Germanic tribes). Justinian ordered the attack on the the Germanic Tribes in Italy, Spain and Tunisia to undo these acts of land reforms (taking of land from Roman elites to roman Peasants). The invasion by the Lombards into Italy in 570 AD seems to be tied in with an attempt to reinstate the land reforms that the Justinian had undone during his reign (while most historians used 476 and the abolishment of the last Western Roman Emperor as the end of the Empire, the same people owned most of the land in the West before and after that date (Mostly Roman Elites) and 570 is a more accurate date for the end of the Empire in the West. 570 AD is the date not only of the Lombards invasion of Northern Italy but the start of radical Land Redistribution to the peasants which would lead to more such land reforms during the whole of the Dark Ages. Thus the Dark Ages is one of the few times in history the rich become poorer and the poor became richer (Notice this is tied in with the disappearance of PAID soldiers and the reappearance of peasants Levies raised to protect their homes and farms).
My point here is simple, Militia/Draftee/Universal Military Service Armies if properly Equipped, motivated, organized and lead can defeat ANY Volunteer/Mercenary Army. The key is Motivation. If the choice is which thief is going to take most of the product of your work, such peasant does not care who rules over him and thus hard to motivate except with money (Thus the ease to raise Volunteer/Mercenary Armies). On the other hand a Motivated Army of Militia/Draftees can defeat such Mercenary Armies, even if minimally equipped and trained (do to Motivation and the ease it is to raise an army when the people are Motivated) if property lead and organized (as opposed to an unorganized armed mob). The key is motivation. The Roman Militia Army had no motivation to go to war just to enrich the Roman Elite and thus were terrible soldiers to loot the Mediterranean after Rome become the sole Super Power in Europe after 202 AD. On the other hand hired Mercenaries are easy to recruit if you promise them a share in the spoils and thus the perfect soldiers to loot with. The problem with Mercenaries is you must be able to pay them, if you do not have the money they will leave your service (They can NOT afford to stay, they can stay for a while, even a few years but over time they will HAVE to abandon you just to feed themselves). A motivated Militia is feeding itself and thus a lot cheaper to form up and if motivation is kept up, able to last for years in the field if they believe in what they are fighting for even if food and supplies are scare for years at a time (As was the case with Rome during the decades long first and Second Punic war and first and Second Macedonia Wars).
The Pentagon knows this, the US was defeated by Peasant levies in Vietnam and the USSR was defeated by Peasant levies in Afghanistan (And we are having a problem with the same Afghan levies). Sadr's "Militia" in Iraq was a such a Levy (Not quite a draft for Sadr's organization is not quite legal, but not a paid force either and consists of most if not all of the Shiites of military age in the Baghdad Slums in effect a de facto draft). While these forces are NOT anywhere near as equipped as is the US Army, these Militia are motivated and had enough equipment, leadership and doctrine to win (As can be seen in Lebanon where the Shiite Militia they held their fire till the situation was to their advantage and then and only then engaged the Israelis).
Thus the key is Motivation not whether someone is a Volunteer/Paid Mercenary or a Draftee/Militia/ Universal Military Service soldier. While it is easier to motivate with money and benefits then any other way, and it is easier to PAY people to train in proper fighting Doctrine when they are paid to do so, and is easier to have people form into organization to fight if that is how they are to be paid, if the same person is motivated by OTHER FACTORS, they can also be motivated to train properly, to obey orders and to stay in formations. It is harder to do so when it comes to draftees but not impossible and if done you can raise a much BETTER army, cheaper than if you rely on money alone.
While US forces were in Vietnam from the 1950s onward, the major expansion occurred in 1965 do to the growing fear that the South Vietnamese would be overwhelmed by the Viet Cong that year (The Viet Cong only formed larger than Company size units in 1964, expanding their support elements during 1964 and 1965).
The US sent in its Draftee army and by 1970 we had MASSIVE protests on the Campuses against the War. Nixon ran in 1968 with a Secret plan to end the War (i.e. Nixon was the Peace Candidate in 1968). When Nixon expanded the war, opposition to the war increased, Nixon then downsized the war starting in 1970 so that by 1972 the only US troops in Vietnam were volunteers NOT draftees (and most US troops had been pulled out leaving the South Vietnamese to fight the war alone). This quick turnaround was do to the FEAR if Nixon of Losing the 1972 Election. Nixon wanted to run as a strong President who wanted Peace but did NOT want to abandoned the South Vietnamese ("Peace with Honor" was the slogan). Nixon's withdraw of most troops by 1972 (and additional withdraws in 1972), his visits to China and Russia (To show he was willing to work out a compromise over Vietnam) and his Order permitting any Draftee to OPT out of going to Vietnam (while Painting McGovern as someone who would turn over Vietnam to the Commies).
Look at the time line Year 3 (1968), the US population starts for the first time to OPPOSE the war (prior to 1968 most Americans Supported the war in Vietnam). Year 5 (1970) the US Starts to pull out troops (With some troops pulling out in 1969). Year 5 also saw HUGE and INTENSE anti-war demonstrations. These die out within a year (I even had a teacher point out the Protests ended after the students were shot at Kent State in 1970). Congress does not cut off funds till 1974 (Voted for as Many a Republican expect a backlash as opposition to the war Increases).
Lets look at the Iraqi War. The US went in in 2002 (a year after 9/11). Most Americans OPPOSED the war from day 1, Congress votes for the war. In year 2, the President gets re-elected on a pro-war platform. Opposition to the war increase over the next two years, but even in 2006, most Congress Candidates hold pro-war platforms (even while the People vote the Democrats in to end the war). You do have protests, but they are small (You had big ones in 2002 when the war started but few now a days).
Look at the Difference, the Draftee Army starts to be withdrawn within a year of when most Americans oppose the war, with elected officiants losing their seats in that very year on that Subject (Look at Nixon's Victory in 1968). US troops were mostly withdrawn within 4 years of the time period when most Americans oppose the war (i.e. by the time of the 1972 Presidential election).
With the Draftee Army, the US goes in with MOST AMERICANS OPPOSING THE WAR. US Troops have ESCALATED since that time, while opposition increased (During Vietnam Opposition to the war increased from 1965 to 1968, but most American SUPPORTED the war during that time period, the Majority only started to oppose the war in 1968). It is now year 4 of when the Volunteer Army went into Iraq. You have no huge protests from the Campuses (You have some but not anything near the protests of the late 1960s or even 2002 when this war started). Americans did NOT vote the war till THIS YEAR when opposition became overwhelming, unlike in Vietnam when the Voters voted the war THE FIRST YEAR IT BECAME UNPOPULAR.
Why the Difference? Various explanation, fear of Communism vs fear of Islam, The perceived threat of the Soviet Union in the 1960s as opposed to the perceived threat of Saddam in 2006, but one of the most telling is the difference in the Army. Now the Army that went to Vietnam was mostly poor and working class children, but you had many Upper Middle Class kids going AND MANY AFRAID THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO. Parents did not want their kids to die in a war they did not support, and the Army was viewed as nothing but Draftees and people viewed them as "Their" Kids. In Iraq, people view the troops as professionals who are being paid, these are NOT their "kids" dieing, but paid professionals. "They knew the risks when they enlisted". Thus people do not see these troops as "Theirs" as in "Their Kids" but as "Theirs" in the sense the Public Highway is "theirs". The word is the same, but the perception is different, with th Draftee the parent knows that just by the act of God their own kids could be going, while with a Volunteer force, the attitude is more like viewing the troops as Highway workers who get killed, they knew the risk when they took the job.
This perception difference explains how fast Politicians in the late 1960s responded to the growing opposition to the War and the Draft, and how modern politicians have NOT responded. One of the Reason for the adoption of the Volunteer Army in the early 1970s was a mercenary army is easier to send to a war which is unpopular at home, than a draftee army. Look at 1972, only "Volunteers" could go to Vietnam, violent opposition to the war ended (Opposition to the war Continued but not at the pace of the late 1960s early 1970s). Nixon even won re-election in 1972 by de facto ending the Draft for Vietnam (It continued till 1973 for other parts of the US Army i.e. Europe Japan and Korea).
This is one of the factors when deciding between a Universal Military Service (UMS, which is what the US had prior to 1973 not a true draftee Army) AND A Mercenary Army, it is easier to ship a mercenary army to fight an unpopular war. The oppose is also true, it is HARDER to send a UMS army to a war opposed by the majority of your countrymen. In most Democratic societies this is NOT a problem. The Country will not go to war without Support for the war from the majority, since the people and the Army are one and the same. If the leadership does send a UMS Army to an unpopular war, the leadership will lose the war (Either by battle as the troops go back home, or in politics as the people will comes into play).
Mercenary Armies, on the other hand, are easier to be sent on Unpopular Wars. The people may oppose the war, but have no real stake in opposing the war. Thus the Leadership can stay in power, all the leadership needs to do is order the unit to go. Thus one of the comments about aggressive states, most do NOT have UMS Armies, for such Armies represent the people and unless the people are for the war a UMS Army can not go to war (And why Dictators who have UMS armies have MASSIVE propaganda efforts to keep both the Army and people loyal to the "cause" as did Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin). If that Propaganda effort fails, the Dictator will fall (In many ways this is what happened to Napoleon his Propaganda Machines was built on military victories, any defeats would lead to his downfall, as it did after the Battle of Nations in 1813 and again after Waterloo in 1815, Mussolini suffered the same fate in 1943, and the reason for the quick surrender of the Germans after Hitler's Death).
Do to this fear of the People most Dictators do NOT use UMS Armies. Instead most Dictators opt for Mercenaries Armies, Armies they can keep loyal by keeping them paid (For example look at the Armies of most South American and other Third world Countries, they may have some draftees in them but most are Mercenaries).
My point here is our present Military is a mercenary one, one that can be shipped anywhere no matter what the American people want (as long as the US Leadership wants it to go). UMS Armies just can NOT be used that way for the people and the Army are one and the same, and thus you MUST get the approval of the People to send a UMS army anywhere.
Side note: Frederick the Great had an army that was made mostly of volunteers, but he did fill in the ranks with draftees and also adopted a rule that such draftees can NOT be more then 1/3 of your troops. This type of draft is used even today in some Latin American Countries, but most drafts today follow the French Draft of the French Revolution, post Frederick the Great, that amounted to universal military service, i.e. every male over 18 serves in the Military. The Service is NOT look upon as some thing great, but something all males had to go through. The side affect of this type of draft is the will of the Army and the Will of the people can not be separated for the people make up the Army. Thus such an Universal Service Army can NOT be sent of a war that is opposed by the people. The US had such an Army in the Civil War, WWI, WWII Korea through Vietnam in 1972. As long the the Majority of Americans supported the War in Vietnam, the Army in Vietnam fought well. When the Majority of the American People turned against the War (Summer of 1968) the US Army in Vietnam went into a slow but steady decline. By 1972 the Army was done.
You see other examples of Universal Military Service Army being asked to fight a war the people no longer believed in. The Central Powers saw this in the fall of 1918 and thus were forced to sign the Armistice (Hitler kept the Germany People supporting the War till he died in May 1945, thus no movement among the people of Germany to end the war prior to May 1945, which is unlike the Fall of 1918, when such calls were made the by people in the form of Strikes, protests, and Mutinies of both the Army and Navy. You do not hear much about it, for similar rejection of WWI was occurring throughout Europe. In the case of Germany they had to resort to the use of Volunteers to suppress the subsequent communist revolts. France and England were able to use their own troops, but withdrew them and used the volunteer elements in their militarize to put down those same strikes and revolts (The French Marines and the French Foreign legions in addition to the various Cavalry units who tended to be more volunteers then the line infantry companies, in England they called for Volunteers to put down the Irish during the Irish Civil War, again to avoid using England's by then mostly draftee army. England's rapid conversion back to a volunteer army was the result of the need to use that army on things most Englishmen opposed then any other reason.
ldlew
(18 posts)What you have written is very sound in the logic and history. I will have to research but everything you have written does make sense. Thank you for your input.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)Yeah I know, we have to compensate them for the risk of defending their country. Lets pay themcombat pay or hazardous duty pay when they have this risk. Lets quit padding the wages of lifers on the backs of real soldiers, the wounded veterans, and the poor. Yes they are a political force, these overpaid retirees and they have way too much to gain. But lets get some justice. The wounded veterans, the sick, the homeless, and the unemployed and their children deserve a break a lot more than the overpaid lifers. Just my belief as a former combat infantryman. Merry Christmas in 2013, the year we rejected the needy to protect those who need it least.
I would like to express my graditute for the respect you have given me for my service.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 23, 2013, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)
I was in the military for 4 years. I chose to leave the military after my enlistment was finished. I could have chosen to take the governments offer to become a career enlisted person. That would have included moving my family every few years, being away from home and from my family for long periods of time. Not being around much of the time to watch my kids grow up, living in sub standard housing, working for sub standard wages, etc. The big incentive was that at the end of 20 years, I would be able to retire with full military retirement benefits for the rest of my life. It didn't mean I would be able to live on this retirement package, and it is doubtful that I would have been able have saved much, if any, money during that period. But, for me, at age 38 I would have this retirement as a base salary while I perused another career.
That was the deal, take it or leave it. I left it, many took it. Those who chose to take the government up on their offer lived up to their end of the deal. It would be grossly unfair for the government to not keep their end of the deal.
And for all of the whiners out there. You could have had the same offer but you weren't interested. You could have made the same sacrifices for the same reward, but you didn't. Maybe you thought that would have been beneath you. Maybe you would have been afraid to do that. For whatever reason, you could have chosen that path. And if you had, you would expect the government to live up to their end of the bargain.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)A lot of kids enlist these days because it's a steady paycheck and a way out of poverty.
Cut pay, and watch recruiting take a hit.
It's a no-win situation right now.
QuestForSense
(653 posts)A military-industrial complex 6 or 7 times as large as the rest of the world combined? If they trimmed that down to, say 4 times, we could solve most of the economic problems of the world. Why can't people realize the military guys are in the business of war, not peace, and the same goes for the defense contractors, the real 'suckers on the gov'mnt tit.' Hagel sounds (and looks) like he's channeling Bob Dole.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)by 20%:
http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=121275
My issue with the Ryan/Murray budget is that no one saw reductions in COLA for retirees coming--my husband is a recent Air Force retiree, and we figured we were safe from pretty much all of the planned restructuring of FUTURE pensions and benefits, except maybe an increase in Tricare fees.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
Grins
(7,218 posts)And I'm sure those retirees and every member of the American Legion are all eager for a tax increase to pay for those "...Americans who have served honorably in uniform." Amiright?
ldlew
(18 posts)As a retired military person who came from a poor family, don't blame the enlistees as the problem. I spent a lot of years in the military because it gave me a chance to change the trajectory of my family's past. Once in the military, it gave me a chance to improve the quality of life for my family. But, it cost me alot as well. I lost a lot of friends, I lost a lot of money because of the constant moves. I lost the family because of my military service. It is not an easy life. As I went up in rank I got more and more information on what it is all about. With the volunteer force, life improved for the military personnel and that was good. Is the budget of the military out of control, the answer is yes. Our wars are started for GREED! We want what they have and we try to take it. Use of the military is not for "our freedoms". It is not about our "way of life". It is not about "our security". It is about money. It is not about the military complex (corporations). It is the politicians who we elect who are bought by the corporations and for that politician's personal gain. Elect the right people to office.......we don't have the problem. Personal integrity of our elected officials is primary in the correction of our country needs
Research State to State for elected officials and you will find the same family names. Research the schools and colleges that they attend and you will find the same colleges or universities. Research who you vote for before voting. Find out their family history. Find out their history. Always think long term as our elected officials also want a "better life for their family" and "apples don't fall far from the tree". A slight rant but the blame ends up with our elected officials.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)have no shame in screaming for every penny of every government check they can get.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)Has it ever occurred to that these 'anti-gubmint' people are anti government because they know first hand how the military works and they are getting screwed. If you had served 20 or more years in the military (and no I didn't, 4 years was enough for me), and lived up to your end of the deal you made with the government then you would also would have wanted the government to live up to their end of the deal. The retired military personal didn't make the rules, they just played by them. You could have chosen the same path, but you didn't.
I sort of think that you are the wingnut in this scenario. Stop your insane whining, you sound like a Republican.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)our budget problems are caused by poor black women having too many babies because they would rather have babies than work.
I know because I have them in my family on on my damn facebook page.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)I don't know too many enlisted people that are republicans.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)madville
(7,412 posts)I was stationed at four different units while active duty and the vast majority varied from lean-right to far-right. All the civilians were retired military working on their second federal pension.
Now what I did notice was that younger people tend to be more socially liberal these days but when it comes down to $$$$ they still realize the Republicans butter their bread.