The Water Cooler

BOL message board for off-topic posts

Boards ▾

BOL Round Table

The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet

The Water Cooler

BOL message board for off-topic posts

The Tailgate

Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell or swap tickets

Reply

OT: Military Retirement Changing....For the Worse

  • BSEan said... (original post)

    This is not going to be a popular post, but military members have some of the worst entitlement mindsets around when it comes to things like this. Yes, you guys risk your lives. Yes, you do things most people could never do. Yes, you deserve praise and honor.

    But you signed up voluntarily. You volunteered to do all of those things. If you are young, you probably signed on in part due to promises that will not be kept. No, that's not fair - but it's a risk you took. You put your future in the hands of government, the most inefficient and untrustworthy form of agency in the world. I'm in the private sector and you can be damn sure I'm never going to expect a penny in Social Security benefits for this exact reason - nor will I waste any time worrying or arguing to get anything when the time comes. I'll do anything to keep my future out of the hands of government.

    If you think retirement at 50 when the average person lives to be 80 is sustainable, see the auto industry in Detroit. When you argue to maintain unsustainable programs for ANY reason, you are arguing against the interests of those with no voice to argue back - the generations to come after you.

    Everyone has a great emotional argument as to why their entitlements are more worthy than others. Teachers use children as their argument, military uses service to their country. However, without sound economic policy, there is no sustaining any of it. Economics isn't called the dismal science for nothing - it's the study of scarce resources. It's a fundamental natural law that wants and needs are unlimited, but resources to fulfill them are not. The risk of pain and suffering that follows from this law is not something that can ever be eliminated from life, and any government that tries or promises to do it will never succeed.

    Also, to those who argue that the excessive benefits of a few should be cut instead, the math doesn't work out. There are far more military people and teachers than politicians and well-paid government administrators. It's not an "either/or" choice - it has to be both.

    You are right about one thing, it wont be popular among military. How about this let some free loading non working piece of trash have half of what you have worked for. Keep in mind the military folks have to pay into their retirment now. It is not just a pension.

    signature image
  • This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! Start Free Trial
    signature image
  • Bamajoe34 said... (original post)

    What exactly would you be willing to be if there was some why to quantify this? It is not just the "grunts" that have to do road marches or get beat up during movements, hard landings and a lot of other things. Just the sleep deprivation alone probably causes the average soldier 2-6 years of his/her life. I know I have been there. Part of the time I was combat arms and the other I was avaition. A very few jobs in the military have an 8-5 as you call it. Not to mention the emotinal strain they are constantly under that you would not understand.

    I actually would understand it perfectly, but nice assumption to the contrary. And there are as many if not more office pog's than there are guys that go on humps more than once a month as part of a battalion togetherness exercise. My point is there are plenty of folks beat down by their service, but it's disingenuous to suggest everyone who leaves the military is in dire need of retirement because they're too worn down to work another job. Most of those 48 year old's retiring as Col's are the most healthy men in America.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • homebrothajr said... (original post)

    I actually would understand it perfectly, but nice assumption to the contrary. And there are as many if not more office pog's than there are guys that go on humps more than once a month as part of a battalion togetherness exercise. My point is there are plenty of folks beat down by their service, but it's disingenuous to suggest everyone who leaves the military is in dire need of retirement because they're too worn down to work another job. Most of those 48 year old's retiring as Col's are the most healthy men in America.

    Enlisted are the majority of the retirees and it is interesting that you choose to use Col's just to support your position because using an enlisted man or woman would blow your argument right out of the water.

    Amazing that so many folks are willing to let the military suffer instead of going after the politicians where the real problem with the economy is. It wasn't soldiers who forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make bad loans to people that they knew would not repay them. It wasn't soldiers who gave Trillions to financial institutions and automobile companies.

    You all sound like you think the folks who volunteer to serve their country are at fault for the state of the economy instead of the heroes that they are.

    This post was edited by BamaFanB4u 3 years ago

  • homebrothajr said... (original post)

    I actually would understand it perfectly, but nice assumption to the contrary. And there are as many if not more office pog's than there are guys that go on humps more than once a month as part of a battalion togetherness exercise. My point is there are plenty of folks beat down by their service, but it's disingenuous to suggest everyone who leaves the military is in dire need of retirement because they're too worn down to work another job. Most of those 48 year old's retiring as Col's are the most healthy men in America.

    What percentage of retiries are Col.? It was not my intent to say "all people who retire are broken down" I was more trying to counter the arguement that life expectiacy is 90 year old crap people were posting. I get that your MI, and garrison support type folks may not do as much but I can promise you that most of your support MOS folks get beat up pretty good in a 20 year career. More so than someone out here working a 9-5. I think that the backbone of the military will suffer if this takes effect. I think Mid to Senior NCO's will pull pitch and you don't want that.

    signature image
  • BamaFanB4u said... (original post)

    Enlisted are the majority of the retirees and it is interesting that you choose to use Col's just to support your position because using an enlisted man or woman would blow your argument right out of the water.

    Amazing that so many folks are willing to let the military suffer instead of going after the politicians where the real problem with the economy is. It wasn't soldiers who forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make bad loans to people that they knew would not repay them. It wasn't soldiers who gave Trillions to financial institutions and automobile companies.

    You all sound like you think the folks who volunteer to serve their country are at fault for the state of the economy instead of the heroes that they are.

    You lost me at volunteer. You aren't volunteering if you expect something in return. Just saying.

  • With as much red ink that we have, there are no sacred cows left that are immune to cuts. It's really as simple as that. Drawing government pensions for decades is coming to an end, sooner or later.

  • Bamajoe34 said... (original post)

    What percentage of retiries are Col.? It was not my intent to say "all people who retire are broken down" I was more trying to counter the arguement that life expectiacy is 90 year old crap people were posting. I get that your MI, and garrison support type folks may not do as much but I can promise you that most of your support MOS folks get beat up pretty good in a 20 year career. More so than someone out here working a 9-5. I think that the backbone of the military will suffer if this takes effect. I think Mid to Senior NCO's will pull pitch and you don't want that.

    Ok I misunderstood your argument then. I'm simply saying allowing enlistees to retire at 38-40 and draw 40 years of retirement pay is really draining on our economy. I do think they should get some type of retirement, but the current system is unworkable. And for the record, I think the current members on active duty should get grandfathered in. They joined expecting 20 yr retirement, they should get 20 year retirement. But we need to change the system, and I'm glad to hear it's actually being done.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • I think the men and women that put their life on the line everyday deserve alot more than what they get- and for the those of you that compare your job to what these people do every day need to get life-really your jealous after what these people have put their wife and kids through to save yoursnono

  • RTR 65

    Our govt needs to be slashed drastically and I agree that govt employees should not retire on the backs of working people BUT............

    This is very different and to all those that have never served, you have no idea. Yeah there a few cushy jobs in the USAF & the Navy and maybe even a few in the USMC and USA.

    I spent 4 years in the USA in combat arms and I can tell you 20 would be hard time. We were in the field for 7 months my first year and deployed 3 times overseas during my stint.

    Military retirement is an inducement for enlistment. If they want to end it then so be it but all on active duty now need to be grandfathered.

    You won't find anybody more conservative than me but you fools comparing our service people to fat azzed desk jockey bureaucrats in DC are very misinformed. Go walk a mile in their boots.

    Again, those sanctimonius azz hats in congress keep all of their ridiculous perks while they are drowning our country in debt and spending. They should not even be talking about military retirement until they have cut elsewhere. Those people have earned it unlike all the welfare recipients and scumbag leech politicians.

  • This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! Start Free Trial
  • RTR 65 said... (original post)

    Our govt needs to be slashed drastically and I agree that govt employees should not retire on the backs of working people BUT............

    This is very different and to all those that have never served, you have no idea. Yeah there a few cushy jobs in the USAF & the Navy and maybe even a few in the USMC and USA.

    I spent 4 years in the USA in combat arms and I can tell you 20 would be hard time. We were in the field for 7 months my first year and deployed 3 times overseas during my stint.

    Military retirement is an inducement for enlistment. If they want to end it then so be it but all on active duty now need to be grandfathered.

    You won't find anybody more conservative than me but you fools comparing our service people to fat azzed desk jockey bureaucrats in DC are very misinformed. Go walk a mile in their boots.

    Again, those sanctimonius azz hats in congress keep all of their ridiculous perks while they are drowning our country in debt and spending. They should not even be talking about military retirement until they have cut elsewhere. Those people have earned it unlike all the welfare recipients and scumbag leech politicians.

    Haha, unfortunately there are plenty of "fat azzed desk jockey bureaucrats" in our military.
    I'm as gung-ho about the military as anyone, but its budget is obscenely bloated and trims HAVE to be made. And while some do join for the retirement perk, I'd be willing to wager many more join for the educational benefits, knowing full well they won't stay in for 20. Therefore, retirement should be cut back way before GI Bill benefits.
    And I agree 100% our leaders (Congress, Executive Branch) should be the first to feel the pinch.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • While I agree that all public sector retirement plans should be revamped (especially politicians who can work clear through to death), I see no problem with the bill as it is proposed. Fifty is way too young, and I think that having a 5-8 year head start on retirement at 60 (with bills being presented to also raise the SS age to 67-68) is still a nice way to honor our vets. I know this sounds cold, but people who work in the public sector seem to forget that most other people working in private sectors have had retirement completely eliminated, and that COLAs are a thing of the past with private sector jobs, much less employment.

    "Touch that thang four" - Courtney Upshaw Roll Tide!!!

  • I am curious if you guys that support cutting military pensions are also against raising taxes on corporations or letting the bush tax cuts expire.

    signature image

    RTR!!!!!!!

  • bradbhg said... (original post)

    I am curious if you guys that support cutting military pensions are also against raising taxes on corporations or letting the bush tax cuts expire.

    I like the idea of a tax credit for businesses that are actively hiring with an increased tax on businesses that are just sitting on their cash. The key to this recovery, in my mostly uneducated opinion, is job growth. I'm usually pretty laissez faire about gov't meddling, but in this case I think a little further nudging in the form of taxes based on hiring could do wonders for our recovery. But I'm no Friedman...

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Really, you're going to go with that argument, that it's not volunteering when they expect something in return. Wow, that's just sad, and what's worse is there is a soldier on a firing line right now somewhere who is keeping you safe so that you can have that view that these men and women don't deserve what the government promised them when they signed up and enlisted. Be thankful, b/c if the military goes, your freedom to say and feel whatever goes right along with them.

  • Everyone should be in a defined contribution plan (think 401k) rather than an defined benefit plan (traditional pension). Pensions as many municipalities are about find out and many corporations have found out (GM and Chrysler were bailed out by our tax dollars) are essentially ponzi schemes depending on continuous growth and unable to sustain downturns. Government pension schemes are especially bad because it is ssoooooo easy for a one to spend other peoples money.

    That is all.

  • renobama said... (original post)

    Everyone should be in a defined contribution plan (think 401k) rather than an defined benefit plan (traditional pension). Pensions as many municipalities are about find out and many corporations have found out (GM and Chrysler were bailed out by our tax dollars) are essentially ponzi schemes depending on continuous growth and unable to sustain downturns. Government pension schemes are especially bad because it is ssoooooo easy for a one to spend other peoples money.

    That is all.

    once again, and for some reason people keep ignoring this fact. The military have to contribute to their "pension" as some on here call it. It is like a 401k but it is call a TSP. If you want to change it then change it but grandfather the guys that are in there now that have more than 10 years. If you change it get ready to not have much of an Armed Forces because the pay is lousy, the hours suck, the job is dangerous, and people can make more money out in the civilain world. There has to be some kind of incentive for 20+ years of service.

    signature image
  • BamaFanB4u said... (original post)

    Enlisted are the majority of the retirees and it is interesting that you choose to use Col's just to support your position because using an enlisted man or woman would blow your argument right out of the water.

    Amazing that so many folks are willing to let the military suffer instead of going after the politicians where the real problem with the economy is. It wasn't soldiers who forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make bad loans to people that they knew would not repay them. It wasn't soldiers who gave Trillions to financial institutions and automobile companies.

    You all sound like you think the folks who volunteer to serve their country are at fault for the state of the economy instead of the heroes that they are.

    The bank and auto bailouts are all that saved the economy from a complete disaster. You think it's bad now? It would have been armageddon if we hadn't gotten those bailouts. Proof when dems and repubs have to do what is best for the country they can find common ground.

  • This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! Start Free Trial
    signature image signature image
  • Colebone2000 said... (original post)

    Not true at all. If you are in the military right now, you would get your retirement at 20years. That new bill would only effect members who joined after the bill being passed and implemented. If you are in the service right now, then you are safe for retirement at 20years. You and I are considered "grandfathered in."

    That's well and good, but what does this do to our Country's defense in the next 30 years? That's pretty self explanatory, isn't it? It decimates it, because really good people who think about wanting to serve our country will do something else that benefits them more. I have wondered what our country will look like when my kids have to deal with it, it's starting to become pretty clear....and it's scary.

    The United States without a strong defense is no longer the United States....period.

  • Bamajoe34 said... (original post)

    once again, and for some reason people keep ignoring this fact. The military have to contribute to their "pension" as some on here call it. It is like a 401k but it is call a TSP. If you want to change it then change it but grandfather the guys that are in there now that have more than 10 years. If you change it get ready to not have much of an Armed Forces because the pay is lousy, the hours suck, the job is dangerous, and people can make more money out in the civilain world. There has to be some kind of incentive for 20+ years of service.

    As long as they provide a means to go or an alternative to college you will have the armed forces. Kids aren't going to quit joining because their pension changes. Maybe won't re-up for years and years but an uneducated poor kid from bumfu*k Alabama doesn't have a lot of options.

  • RTR 65

    Bamajoe34 said... (original post)

    once again, and for some reason people keep ignoring this fact. The military have to contribute to their "pension" as some on here call it. It is like a 401k but it is call a TSP. If you want to change it then change it but grandfather the guys that are in there now that have more than 10 years. If you change it get ready to not have much of an Armed Forces because the pay is lousy, the hours suck, the job is dangerous, and people can make more money out in the civilain world. There has to be some kind of incentive for 20+ years of service.

    Agree.

    You guys always scare me when you start talking politics. State local and federal govt's take in over .50 cents of every dollar earned in this country. Is that not enough? Raising taxes in any form or fashion does not and has never done anything to alleviate a recession. It would only make it worse.

    The point is there are trillions of dollars that can be cut before you ever even approach the military. Can it be cut? Certainly. I think the military should be cut by about half over time but only if the entitlements are cut first. Also I'm not referring to military retirement as an entitilement. IMO they earned that. If we have to pay a few desk jockey slobs to make sure the combat guys get theirs then so be it.

    Yeah the GI bill is a great carrot as well but pretty much any schmuck can get educational grants now anyway if they look hard enough. How much of a carrot is the GI bill anyway if a soldier goes to college and then can't find a decent job because the economy is in the toilet because of irresponsible spending and debt?

  • RTR 65 said... (original post)


    Yeah the GI bill is a great carrot as well but pretty much any schmuck can get educational grants now anyway if they look hard enough. How much of a carrot is the GI bill anyway if a soldier goes to college and then can't find a decent job because the economy is in the toilet because of irresponsible spending and debt?

    I'd argue the GI Bill is the most enticing carrot of all. The majority of people I know who joined the military did so for the opportunity to go to college. An opportunity they absolutely would not have had if not for their service. Most of them weren't exactly scholars in the running for academic scholarships, so the GI Bill is literally the only way they can get a higher education. And a more educated workforce is a pretty good thing. And unfortunately, there isn't much opportunity for educational grants if you're an average, run of the mill non-minority.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! Start Free Trial