- 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
Disposable: Paul Ryan's Budget Epitomizes How Washington Actually Sees Veterans
Posted on 12/27/16 at 6:39 am
Posted on 12/27/16 at 6:39 am
Big blinking mess.
Tony Carr, John Q. Public
Dec. 24, 2013, 3:15 PM
"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) wants to look tough on budget issues. In an editorial published in USA Today explaining his decision to lead the passage of a budget that reduced vested veteran pensions by an average of $84,000 to $120,000, Mr. Ryan founded his message on the urgent need to “do the right thing.”
In doing so, he created a painful irony; Ryan’s budget seeks to save $6B over the next 10 years – equivalent to less than six-tenths of one percent of projected federal spending over that period — by extracting it from compensation already guaranteed to people who earned it risking their lives and defending their country. In other words, despite his assurances to the contrary, he wants to do exactly the wrong thing.
The military and veteran population stand in awe at Ryan’s explanation. He apparently believes we are not only naive enough not to overlook the gaping moral maw between his words and actions, but also dumb enough not to see this for what it is: just the beginning.
If he can decouple vested veteran pensions from inflation while we still have people dying in combat, there will be nothing to stop him from continually enlarging the legitimacy of promise-breaking until veterans wake up one day and realize the pension package they’re getting bears no resemblance to what they and their families earned.
Ryan presents a classic false dilemma. He wants us to believe the nation must choose between keeping promises to veterans and remaining secure. He admonishes us that “since 2001, excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost per service member in the active-duty force has risen by 41% in inflation-adjusted dollars.”
What he doesn’t mention is that when the $6T eventual price tag of those wars is counted, personnel costs will define a tiny percentage of their total price tag, despite the fact that any success we register from those conflicts will have been wholly earned not by machines, but by the people who fought and died to carry out the nation’s will. Paying people isn’t something we do instead of staying secure as a nation . . . it’s the very way we stay secure. People win wars, not machines, bureaucracies, or defense contractors.
What Ryan also doesn’t mention is that part of the reason money is running short these days is that he voted to authorize and expand the two wars whose costs have now finally become so inescapable that he and others can no longer deny them.
As these costs fall due, the search is growing frantic for the most politically expedient way to ameliorate them, and politicians like Ryan are finding it easier to target troop pensions than to engage DoD in genuine reform. Mr. Ryan obfuscates his purpose by hiding behind Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and his generals, claiming their desire for pension reform vindicates his attempt to extract budgetary savings on the backs of warriors who have just endured the most punishing operations tempo in national history.
But notwithstanding that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force claims DoD wasn’t even consulted before the Ryan-Murray provision was inserted, what Ryan doesn’t advertise is that Hagel and the generals are struggling to make ends meet because Congress and the President have underresourced the department without granting it mission relief, leaving them with a problem they can’t legally solve and have a solemn duty not to abandon.
Hagel, Dempsey and the service chiefs desperately want reform, and are entitled to the presumption they’d rather not achieve reform in the predatory manner thus far undertaken. But this isn’t reform. This is the opposite — it’s the avoidance of reform. This is cheating . . . by saving money without having to engage in reform. This is back-door budgeteering. Nothing more."
LINK
Tony Carr, John Q. Public
Dec. 24, 2013, 3:15 PM
"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) wants to look tough on budget issues. In an editorial published in USA Today explaining his decision to lead the passage of a budget that reduced vested veteran pensions by an average of $84,000 to $120,000, Mr. Ryan founded his message on the urgent need to “do the right thing.”
In doing so, he created a painful irony; Ryan’s budget seeks to save $6B over the next 10 years – equivalent to less than six-tenths of one percent of projected federal spending over that period — by extracting it from compensation already guaranteed to people who earned it risking their lives and defending their country. In other words, despite his assurances to the contrary, he wants to do exactly the wrong thing.
The military and veteran population stand in awe at Ryan’s explanation. He apparently believes we are not only naive enough not to overlook the gaping moral maw between his words and actions, but also dumb enough not to see this for what it is: just the beginning.
If he can decouple vested veteran pensions from inflation while we still have people dying in combat, there will be nothing to stop him from continually enlarging the legitimacy of promise-breaking until veterans wake up one day and realize the pension package they’re getting bears no resemblance to what they and their families earned.
Ryan presents a classic false dilemma. He wants us to believe the nation must choose between keeping promises to veterans and remaining secure. He admonishes us that “since 2001, excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost per service member in the active-duty force has risen by 41% in inflation-adjusted dollars.”
What he doesn’t mention is that when the $6T eventual price tag of those wars is counted, personnel costs will define a tiny percentage of their total price tag, despite the fact that any success we register from those conflicts will have been wholly earned not by machines, but by the people who fought and died to carry out the nation’s will. Paying people isn’t something we do instead of staying secure as a nation . . . it’s the very way we stay secure. People win wars, not machines, bureaucracies, or defense contractors.
What Ryan also doesn’t mention is that part of the reason money is running short these days is that he voted to authorize and expand the two wars whose costs have now finally become so inescapable that he and others can no longer deny them.
As these costs fall due, the search is growing frantic for the most politically expedient way to ameliorate them, and politicians like Ryan are finding it easier to target troop pensions than to engage DoD in genuine reform. Mr. Ryan obfuscates his purpose by hiding behind Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and his generals, claiming their desire for pension reform vindicates his attempt to extract budgetary savings on the backs of warriors who have just endured the most punishing operations tempo in national history.
But notwithstanding that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force claims DoD wasn’t even consulted before the Ryan-Murray provision was inserted, what Ryan doesn’t advertise is that Hagel and the generals are struggling to make ends meet because Congress and the President have underresourced the department without granting it mission relief, leaving them with a problem they can’t legally solve and have a solemn duty not to abandon.
Hagel, Dempsey and the service chiefs desperately want reform, and are entitled to the presumption they’d rather not achieve reform in the predatory manner thus far undertaken. But this isn’t reform. This is the opposite — it’s the avoidance of reform. This is cheating . . . by saving money without having to engage in reform. This is back-door budgeteering. Nothing more."
LINK
Posted on 12/27/16 at 6:42 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
If he can decouple vested veteran pensions from inflation while we still have people dying in combat, there will be nothing to stop him from continually enlarging the legitimacy of promise-breaking until veterans wake up one day and realize the pension package they’re getting bears no resemblance to what they and their families earned.
I've been told speculative editorializing is a hallmark of fake news, so I'd ask you to please remove this thread. Thanks.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 6:44 am to WhiskeyPapa
I'd be one of the first to agree that veterans benefits needs to be reformed, but I wonder what Ryan has done about congressional benefits and pensions.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 6:48 am to GeauxxxTigers23
There is a multitude of areas that should be addressed and cut before we even consider reforming/altering anything involving veterans...unless it is to improve the VA system.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 6:53 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
If he can decouple vested veteran pensions from inflation while we still have people dying in combat, there will be nothing to stop him from continually enlarging the legitimacy of promise-breaking until veterans wake up one day and realize the pension package they’re getting bears no resemblance to what they and their families earned.
I've been told speculative editorializing is a hallmark of fake news, so I'd ask you to please remove this thread. Thanks.
You've been told? What do you -think-?
This is a legitimate article that I got off of "Doctrine Man's" FB page.
Doctrine Man
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 6:55 am
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:05 am to WhiskeyPapa
I hope he runs with this, then go after social security.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:12 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
I hope he runs with this, then go after social security.
You hope Ryan continues to strip away benefits from veterans?
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:15 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
You hope Ryan continues to strip away benefits from veterans?
Nothing is going to get stripped its political suicide. Its what republicans do when in charge, head right for the sun.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:15 am to WhiskeyPapa
DM's always good for a laugh. Even funnier if you've worked on a Division-level or higher staff.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:26 am to WhiskeyPapa
Holy shite veterans get a 120k pension?? No wonder were broke
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:31 am to el Gaucho
quote:
Holy shite veterans get a 120k pension?? No wonder were broke
Your Trolling is still really sad, pathetic, horrible, etc... Powder.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:38 am to WhiskeyPapa
Couple things:
Trumps infrastructure plan spends 500B - 1T over that same period.
That being said, this article is why we're never going to cut jack shite out of the budget. Because any time you touch anything its a shite fest of teeth gnashing. Its either think about the chirren, or soldiers, or grey spotted horny toad.
Spending cuts are not going to be fun.
quote:
Ryan’s budget seeks to save $6B over the next 10 years – equivalent to less than six-tenths of one percent of projected federal spending over that period
Trumps infrastructure plan spends 500B - 1T over that same period.
That being said, this article is why we're never going to cut jack shite out of the budget. Because any time you touch anything its a shite fest of teeth gnashing. Its either think about the chirren, or soldiers, or grey spotted horny toad.
Spending cuts are not going to be fun.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 7:53 am
Posted on 12/27/16 at 8:05 am to Centinel
quote:
DM's always good for a laugh. Even funnier if you've worked on a Division-level or higher staff.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 8:07 am to WhiskeyPapa
Needs more quad charts.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 8:52 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:Details? Timeframe? Year of planned enactment?
reduced vested veteran pensions by an average of $84,000 to $120,000
This reads a whole lot like "Congress is increasing benefits 5%, which translates to a "cut" of .........."
As FedGov pay increases are referred to as "cuts" in this manner all the time, I'll hold commentary until details are forthcoming.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 8:58 am to WhiskeyPapa
Good. Pensions need to be cut. You shouldn't be able to draw a military pension until you're at least 55 and probably more like 60. No more retiring at 38 and getting a pension for more than twice as long as you were in the military.
Signed,
A former infantry officer and Iraq War vet
Signed,
A former infantry officer and Iraq War vet
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:02 am to WhiskeyPapa
Benefit reform for military is desperately needed to maintain current troop levels. A massive pension, health care for life, affirmative action on steroids for obtaining a federal job. Post 9/11 GI bill pays for all of your tuition even if you sat in DC for four years and got out.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:08 am to AUbused
quote:
Trumps infrastructure plan spends 500B - 1T over that same period.
That being said, this article is why we're never going to cut jack shite out of the budget. Because any time you touch anything its a shite fest of teeth gnashing. Its either think about the chirren, or soldiers, or grey spotted horny toad.
Spending cuts are not going to be fun.
The GOP has the tiller...it is a lot harder to steer the damn boat than it is to complain about how the boat is being steered!!!
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News