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

[pvsi]

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.

And I thought blacks on welfare in the ghettoes was the ultimate welfare class in America, duh.

 

[healthmyths]

NOT one of you seemed to comprehend the enormity of the BIGGEST LIE that passed ACA by just 7 votes and how that relates to this thread!

NOT ONE of you seemed to pick up on the gross discrepancies of the number used to convince "YES" votes, i.e. 46 million uninsured!
I don't understand how the simple fact that in either situation i.e.
10 million counted as UNINSURED are not legal citizens...
14 million BEFORE Obamacare should have been enrolled and therefore NOT counted as "uninsured" and
18 million don't want, need health insurance... YET those number made up the 42 million that should not have been counted as "uninsured"!
And then we look at it from another angle..
of the 310 million americans..
150 million are covered by employers' plans.
67 million by Medicaid
50 million Medicare
16 million private plans
8 million under the VA and
8 million under Tricare...
That is 301 million COVERED by health insurance,etc. leave less then 9 million...
NOT 46 million...
And this also doesn't count 18 million that don't want health insurance... probably covered somewhere in the above!
And definitely should not include 10 million illegals!

So why doesn't this rise to the top as a discussion point?
WE WERE LIED to by Obama to pass Obama care and the MASSIVE MESS it's creating!

Do all of you really comprehend this? There never were 46 million uninsured, the number used to pass ACA!

 

[HenryBHough]

The reduced pension idea may have merit.

But I'd suggest starting with a small-scale effort. For example, eliminating all pensions and benefits for The Secret Service. Then, if that works out, move on to The IRS.

 

[ogibillm]

Hmm...OK. It's obvious that you were never man enough to put on the uniform of your country and go to war.

Tell you what...I'll make a deal with you. Would you let me shoot you in the ass with a 7.62 or a 5.56 round in exchange for those "amazing" benefits? OR, would you exchange your youth and most of your middle age - being away from your family for years at a time - for those "amazing" benefits?

Tell me - just WHAT EXACTLY is "amazing" about those "benefits"? You seem to be an authority on government benefits - so please enlighten us - what makes them "amazing"?

you're right, i've never volunteered.

my wife has though, and i've seen her off on two deployments. I haven't seen much of her in June since she's been away at AT for most of it.

but then she's a relatively cheap soldier. her insurance is only taken care of while deployed. she only earns time towards full military retirement while she's on active duty orders. she's paid as a federal technician except for her drill weekends. we don't get to shop at a subsidized tax free px, or have our housing paid for.

so here's the thing - she's making all the sacrifice and putting in all the work of the active duty soldier, but she does not receive the same benefits. so when other professional soldiers want to start bitching about how they should receive full retirement benefits after putting their 20 years and how they can't afford to pay even a modicum more towards their health insurance, or accept that their pension will be raised by 1% less than it otherwise would be i don't have a lot of sympathy. there are plenty of soldiers out there doing the same job without the perks.

so again, i'm all for service incentives and perks. but they can't be treated as if they are untouchable. just like social security - the system is good in theory but it may have to be adjusted to the times.

So your Wife is in the Guard. I had subordinates in my civilian career that also served in the Guard and a couple actually retired from the Guard and receives a monthly pension. I readily admit that I know little about the Guard. I was RA.

Now, please, explain this idea of "untouchable" to me. Veterans benefits have been cut slowly, for the past 40 years. What are these "perks" that you seem to think that the military flaunts at you? Do you mean care at the VA??? Have you watched the news for the past 6 months?

Oh, I get it, you mean that we can fly (standby) on any military aircraft (providing there is a seat)? Trust me - that is no "perk". Oh....you must mean the commissary!!! We get to shop there and save 3-4 percent (maybe) on groceries.

How the hell does that equate to "untouchable"?


And frankly, as far as your Wife not getting those same "perks" that the other active duty soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines "receive" - tell your Wife to transition to Active Duty if it offends you so much - better yet, enlist. Find out for yourself just how "well" these men and women are treated on a daily basis. Not just during deployment or on the weekends...24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

the point was there are soldiers out there willing to do the same job without all the benefits. if we're going to be serious about maintaining our armed forces without letting the cost skyrocket it may be time to consider things like transitioning to more reserve and guard components or adjusting pay and benefit to reflect the role of the soldier at any given time. For instance it may make more sense to pay an enlisted soldier more up front, but then charge him a greater portion of his health care after he gets out. Or perhaps it means a pay increase with retirement benefits that aren't just based on 20 years or more but that require a combination of age, time in service, and perhaps consideration for deployments.
Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2014 - Charts
according to this site we're spending a little over $800 billion on defense for this year. of that $800 billion, $200 billion + is going towards retirement and healthcare for veterans.

i don't believe that's a sustainable path.

 

[daveman]

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.

and again, even the author of the piece isn't claiming that all benefits should be cut, just that we shouldn't be treating them as untouchable. realistically we may have to trim some of the amazing benefits. they'll still be great benefits, just not as unbelievable as they've been in the past.

"Unbelievable"? I must have missed out on that benefits package.

 

[daveman]

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.

I have never known an enlisted man to actually stop working after "retiring" from the military.

Not one.

I could have, but I'd have starved to death.

Shoot, even my last supervisor -- a Chief Master Sergeant E-9 with 30 years -- was going to get a job after he punched out.

 

[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.

And I thought blacks on welfare in the ghettoes was the ultimate welfare class in America, duh.

You are not implying the military's PROMISED and contractual benefits in return for their promising to give their lives for this country is welfare, are you?

 

[ogibillm]

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

and again, even the author of the piece isn't claiming that all benefits should be cut, just that we shouldn't be treating them as untouchable. realistically we may have to trim some of the amazing benefits. they'll still be great benefits, just not as unbelievable as they've been in the past.

"Unbelievable"? I must have missed out on that benefits package.

you know of other jobs that will take you with no skills at age 18, give you a signing bonus, train you, cover all your health care, shelter you, pay for your schooling, give you a raise because you get married, and allow you to retire at 50% pay for the rest of your life (with cost of living increases) after 20 years?

 

[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.

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?

Paul Ryan has been on the leading edge of cutting military pay and benefits.

Paul Ryan Leads the way on Benefit Cuts for Veterans

A final effort by Senate Republicans to halt cuts to pensions of military retirees failed late Tuesday, after Democrats blocked an amendment to the controversial budget bill.

The two-year budget agreement, which cleared a key test vote earlier in the day, was expected to get a final vote no later than Wednesday.

Ahead of the final vote, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., tried unsuccessfully to use a parliamentary tactic to force a vote on the amendment, which he wrote to undo the cuts for military retirees.

Sessions wanted to instead eliminate an estimated $4.2 billion in annual spending by reining in an IRS credit that illegal immigrants have claimed.​

Yes, Ryan is wrong for seeking cuts to veterans' pensions.

But can we stop pretending Democrats have nothing to do with it? I've show the budget the White House submitted seeking cuts to veterans' benefits. And now I've shown that Senate Democrats prefer illegal aliens over this nation's veterans. Not at all surprising, really.

But let's stop pretending Democrats are leading the fight for veterans, mmmkay? Because that's bullshit.

 

[daveman]

If those benefits are really that generous, they should be cut.

Perhaps you should do a little research before you opine. You could talk to a veteran, perhaps.

 

[daveman]

you're right, i've never volunteered.

my wife has though, and i've seen her off on two deployments. I haven't seen much of her in June since she's been away at AT for most of it.

but then she's a relatively cheap soldier. her insurance is only taken care of while deployed. she only earns time towards full military retirement while she's on active duty orders. she's paid as a federal technician except for her drill weekends. we don't get to shop at a subsidized tax free px, or have our housing paid for.

so here's the thing - she's making all the sacrifice and putting in all the work of the active duty soldier, but she does not receive the same benefits. so when other professional soldiers want to start bitching about how they should receive full retirement benefits after putting their 20 years and how they can't afford to pay even a modicum more towards their health insurance, or accept that their pension will be raised by 1% less than it otherwise would be i don't have a lot of sympathy. there are plenty of soldiers out there doing the same job without the perks.

so again, i'm all for service incentives and perks. but they can't be treated as if they are untouchable. just like social security - the system is good in theory but it may have to be adjusted to the times.

So your Wife is in the Guard. I had subordinates in my civilian career that also served in the Guard and a couple actually retired from the Guard and receives a monthly pension. I readily admit that I know little about the Guard. I was RA.

Now, please, explain this idea of "untouchable" to me. Veterans benefits have been cut slowly, for the past 40 years. What are these "perks" that you seem to think that the military flaunts at you? Do you mean care at the VA??? Have you watched the news for the past 6 months?

Oh, I get it, you mean that we can fly (standby) on any military aircraft (providing there is a seat)? Trust me - that is no "perk". Oh....you must mean the commissary!!! We get to shop there and save 3-4 percent (maybe) on groceries.

How the hell does that equate to "untouchable"?


And frankly, as far as your Wife not getting those same "perks" that the other active duty soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines "receive" - tell your Wife to transition to Active Duty if it offends you so much - better yet, enlist. Find out for yourself just how "well" these men and women are treated on a daily basis. Not just during deployment or on the weekends...24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

I honestly don't believe there is a savings once you add in the surcharge at the commissary.

2-3 times a year we'll drive an hour to the Fort Campbell commissary and fill the van with groceries for about $600. The same groceries would cost us $300-$400 MORE at Wal-Mart.

Yes, there is a savings.

 

[daveman]

and again, even the author of the piece isn't claiming that all benefits should be cut, just that we shouldn't be treating them as untouchable. realistically we may have to trim some of the amazing benefits. they'll still be great benefits, just not as unbelievable as they've been in the past.

"Unbelievable"? I must have missed out on that benefits package.

you know of other jobs that will take you with no skills at age 18, give you a signing bonus, train you, cover all your health care, shelter you, pay for your schooling, give you a raise because you get married, and allow you to retire at 50% pay for the rest of your life (with cost of living increases) after 20 years?

No. Do you know of anyone who can retire for good at age 38 after doing all that?

No, you don't. I enlisted late in life; I turned 28 in BMT. I was 48 when I retired. I started another career in the Corps of Engineers-- starting out at the bottom at age 48. When I hit 65, I'll have less than 17 years in. I'll draw a pension, but it won't be much. I'll have my small USAF pension, my smaller CoE Pension, a miniscule amount from TDP, and Social Security (assuming it's still there). I'll be doing okay -- barely -- but I won't be rolling in wads of cash. Oh, and mine is the only income in the family. My wife doesn't work.

Still want to claim I've got it grand?

 

[pvsi]

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.

And I thought blacks on welfare in the ghettoes was the ultimate welfare class in America, duh.

You are not implying the military's PROMISED and contractual benefits in return for their promising to give their lives for this country is welfare, are you?

I am not an expert on military, but I know gang bangers promise to give their lives in exchange for privileges, so do Islamic terrorists in ME, and they are all 100% sure that they are right and that god is with them.

 

[daveman]

And I thought blacks on welfare in the ghettoes was the ultimate welfare class in America, duh.

You are not implying the military's PROMISED and contractual benefits in return for their promising to give their lives for this country is welfare, are you?

I am not an expert on military, but I know gang bangers promise to give their lives in exchange for privileges, so do Islamic terrorists in ME, and they are all 100% sure that they are right and that god is with them.

I KNOW you just didn't compare Americans servicemen and -women with gangbangers and terrorists.

 

[Crystalclear]

If those benefits are really that generous, they should be cut.

Perhaps you should do a little research before you opine. You could talk to a veteran, perhaps.

I did not claim to know it, I said "If those benefits are really that hig".

 

[yidnar]

any political leader or group weather they be democrat, republican, or libertarian who harms our vets will be committing political suicide !! and the vast, vast majority of republican voters and leaders honor our veterans !!

 

[Clementine]

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.

Well, time for congress members and the president to do it for the love of serving and not for the benefits and money.

For NCOs in the military, life is tough. Many qualify for food stamps because the pay is low. And retirement pay is about half the base pay. Some retire and get about the same amount that people on social security receive. It's not a huge chunk of money and not enough to live on.

Congress needs to cut their perks, high pay and retirement benefits before touching any of the military people. And they can sign up for the same health insurance that the rest have. If they are serious about saving money, they should prove it by giving up what they haven't earned. Not a damn one of them can justify the money spent on them.

 

[daveman]

If those benefits are really that generous, they should be cut.

Perhaps you should do a little research before you opine. You could talk to a veteran, perhaps.

I did not claim to know it, I said "If those benefits are really that hig".

They're not.

 

[Crystalclear]

Perhaps you should do a little research before you opine. You could talk to a veteran, perhaps.

I did not claim to know it, I said "If those benefits are really that hig".

They're not.

Well, then they shouldn't be cut.

 

[daveman]

I did not claim to know it, I said "If those benefits are really that hig".

They're not.

Well, then they shouldn't be cut.

Indeed. But don't take just my word for it. Research the issue.