- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Disposable: Paul Ryan's Budget Epitomizes How Washington Actually Sees Veterans
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:14 am to 13SaintTiger
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:14 am to 13SaintTiger
quote:
What the hell are you talking about?
If you are trying to make the argument that these entitlements shouldn't be curtailed and cut for future service members, then you should know who is getting the entitlement in the first place.
This is important, because in order to sustain a fighting force one must properly incentivize young men to join said force using some combination of propaganda, financial compensation in various forms, or compulsion.
Nobody can afford to pay people 40 years of retirement for 20 years of "work" as a cook. Not even the people that own the press.
0
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:15 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Personally I think we need to look at cutting benefits for dependents first, the reform the military retirement system. There are so many succubus infesting military hous No around this country. It's disgusting
Good lord this is a great idea!
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:16 am to AUbused
quote:
Same exact argument made against so many of the proposed cuts. "Well it isnt going to make an impact because its so small".
Lots of small cuts added together make something big. I feel like the only way they're ever going to actually MAKE cuts because of the OP and your argument is if they do a flat percentage across the board. That way the response to the lobbyists against every single cut is the same.
I mean this 4% is part of the recruitment machinery, so it needs to go anyway. We have to make the military smaller and reduce its scope to something reasonable, anything other than perpetual conflict would he fine with me.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 10:17 am
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:20 am to MrCarton
quote:
I mean this 4% is part of the recruitment machinery, so it needs to go anyway. We have to make the military smaller and reduce its scope to something reasonable, anything other than perpetual conflict would he fine with me.
This.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:25 am to MrCarton
Also think you shouldn't be allowed to get married until you're an E-5 and have the permission of your CO then get women out of the military.
That's billions right there.
That's billions right there.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:26 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Also think you shouldn't be allowed to get married until you're an E-5 and have the permission of your CO then get women out of the military.
That's billions right there.
I'd support that. It would reduce the number of people in the military so i think it's great!
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:28 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Also think you shouldn't be allowed to get married until you're an E-5 and have the permission of your CO
Still disagree with that.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:38 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Also think you shouldn't be allowed to get married until you're an E-5 and have the permission of your CO then get women out of the military.
That's billions right there.
E-5 or 21 years old. Whichever comes first.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:39 am to 13SaintTiger
Are you implying that it is low or sustainable? Should we reduce troop levels?
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:40 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:Fine, but first we need to reform dependent benefits.
E-5 or 21 years old. Whichever comes first.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:44 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
That isn't true.
Of course not. I don't know the real number.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:44 am to GeauxxxTigers23
I agree. I think politically you can only solve this problem for future. It is not fair to alter benefits that were already agreed to. Its shitty when companies do it but the gov needs to honor their contracts.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:49 am to Tigerdev
Hopefully this opens up more money for the community.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 11:17 am to MrCarton
There is a new active duty contract that rolls out 1/1/17, has payouts at various year points if you want to get out early and no collection if you do 20 or more until 55 I think.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 11:41 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Also think you shouldn't be allowed to get married until you're an E-5 and have the permission of your CO then get women out of the military.
That's billions right there.
Can't believe I'm reading this. A lot of folks join the military who are already married. You really think the cost of E1-E4 dependents is in the billions? Probably close to half a million. Barely 100 million in the army if you speculate that half of junior enlisted are married, barely 200 if you say all of them are married.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 11:45 am to 13SaintTiger
quote:
A lot of folks join the military who are already married.
not in my military.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 11:46 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
There is a new active duty contract that rolls out 1/1/17, has payouts at various year points if you want to get out early and no collection if you do 20 or more until 55 I think.
not too bad!
Posted on 12/27/16 at 11:51 am to WhiskeyPapa
sequestration. I doubt more than 2% even know what it is or why we have it. Vote with your feet, people.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 11:56 am to MrCarton
Your military wouldn't have made it past WW1
Posted on 12/27/16 at 12:02 pm to WhiskeyPapa
You are being entirely disingenuous with your characterization of this.
The adjustment is for younger retirees under the age of 62. So, if someone joins the Navy at age 18 and retire at age 38, with a full 20 year pension, they will be in that "double dipping" period in their life, where they get a Navy penion, while working at another job.
During that period of time between the ages of 38 and 62, the Navy pension will grow at a 1% slower rate of growth than it used to. Once the retiree reaches the age of 62, their pension will be recalculated so that it will be where it would have been if he or she had received the full inflation adjustment every year since he or she retired.
So, it only impacts the veterans during that "double dipping" stage of life, and not when the veteran truly reaches retirement age.
In addition, the armed forces have changed their retirement plans so that it includes a 401K option, which will benefit those who choose not to serve the full 20 years, and the 401K plan has some very generous matching contributions to help our active duty servicemen and women to plan better for their retirement.
The adjustment is for younger retirees under the age of 62. So, if someone joins the Navy at age 18 and retire at age 38, with a full 20 year pension, they will be in that "double dipping" period in their life, where they get a Navy penion, while working at another job.
During that period of time between the ages of 38 and 62, the Navy pension will grow at a 1% slower rate of growth than it used to. Once the retiree reaches the age of 62, their pension will be recalculated so that it will be where it would have been if he or she had received the full inflation adjustment every year since he or she retired.
So, it only impacts the veterans during that "double dipping" stage of life, and not when the veteran truly reaches retirement age.
In addition, the armed forces have changed their retirement plans so that it includes a 401K option, which will benefit those who choose not to serve the full 20 years, and the 401K plan has some very generous matching contributions to help our active duty servicemen and women to plan better for their retirement.
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News