- 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 9:47 am to Cruiserhog
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:47 am to Cruiserhog
Are pensions the same for combat and non-combat roles?
2
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:47 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Ok, and so what? How many of those people actually saw combat? How many left their FOBs with salsa nights on Thursdays? Maybe 10%? Less than that? We're not talking World War II here or even Vietnam.
Someone had to do what they did. Doesn't matter if they were a 42 series or an 11 series, they did what was asked of them.
Veterans benefits are 4% of total federal spending. This is an asinine subject.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:47 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Dec. 24, 2013, 3:15 PM
What year is it today? Is this still the same bill?
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:48 am to uway
quote:
Are pensions the same for combat and non-combat roles?
Yes.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:48 am to uway
quote:
Are pensions the same for combat and non-combat roles?
All the same if you serve 20 years. But only 17% of those who serve make it that far.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:50 am to 13SaintTiger
quote:
Someone had to do what they did. Doesn't matter if they were a 42 series or an 11 series, they did what was asked of them.
Veterans benefits are 4% of total federal spending. This is an asinine subject.
I disagree. veterans benefits are part of sustaining warfare state spending, and it needs to be cut so that the government can't just buy more soldiers for their endless wars of aggression using ridiculous benefits packages that cant be matched anywhere in the market that doesn't steal to pay for it.
I am a vet. Burn it down.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 9:51 am
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:51 am to WhiskeyPapa
frick.
Paul.
Ryan.
Paul.
Ryan.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:52 am to 13SaintTiger
quote:
But only 17% of those who serve make it that far.
How far do combat arms troops usually make it?
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:53 am to MrCarton
quote:
I disagree. veterans benefits are part of sustaining warfare state spending, and it needs to be cut so that the government can't just buy more soldiers for their endless wars of aggression using ridiculous benefits packages that cant be matched anywhere in the market that doesn't steal to pay for it.
Let's bring back the draft as well, wherein I'm sure benefits will be given. You are talking about cutting 4% of something. That doesn't do anything for federal spending as a whole. What, cut it to 3%, 1%?
quote:
I am a vet. Burn it down.
Figures. Bet you were saying this when you were doing what your contract asked you to do.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:55 am to MrCarton
quote:
How far do combat arms troops usually make it?
I'd be speculating at best to give you a correct answer. I'm sure there is data out there, I just don't know where it is. What I do know is only 17% of those who serve get retirement/make it 20 years.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:56 am to 13SaintTiger
quote:
Unless you are saying disability compensation is out of control?
That's precisely what I'm saying, and it goes both ways.
Educate away...
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:58 am to 13SaintTiger
quote:
Someone had to do what they did. Doesn't matter if they were a 42 series or an 11 series, they did what was asked of them.
Veterans benefits are 4% of total federal spending. This is an asinine subject.
That's a not insignificant chunk of a federal budget that is driving us right the frick off a fiscal cliff. That's as much as the federal government spends on education and housing and urban development combined.
If you're not willing to gore your own sacred ox when it comes to fiscal sustainability, then all your credibility is lost.
Should there be dramatic SSA reform? A total overhaul of Medicare? Yes and yes.
But to realistically address those issues and bring federal outlays in line, you have to include military spending as well, and a big chunk of that includes reforming all forms of compensation.
I'll also be clear: I don't really think we should abrogate current current contracts with current and former active duty soldiers (though this is, what, a slight change in COLA adjustments?), but we need severe reform going forward or else the force will get too small and too expensive to be anything remotely effective.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 9:59 am
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:58 am to 13SaintTiger
quote:
Let's bring back the draft as well, wherein I'm sure benefits will be given.
Lolwut?
quote:
You are talking about cutting 4% of something. That doesn't do anything for federal spending as a whole. What, cut it to 3%, 1%?
Dont be a fricking dipshit bro. i already explained why it is in fact relevant.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:59 am to 13SaintTiger
quote:
Figures. Bet you were saying this when you were doing what your contract asked you to do.
Please show me where i said the government should break contracts. TIA.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:01 am to DisplacedBuckeye
There's no reason too. It's obvious your opinion will not change. I know the shite-birds PVTs who get away with claiming "PTSD" and receive 100%, and for others who don't document illness and injuries throughout their time it's harder. It doesn't mean you pull funds from one of the lowest pieces of the budget.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:01 am to 13SaintTiger
quote:
I'd be speculating at best to give you a correct answer. I'm sure there is data out there, I just don't know where it is. What I do know is only 17% of those who serve get retirement/make it 20 years.
Oh i see. so you don't really know who is doing what in the military?
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:03 am to 13SaintTiger
quote:
There's no reason too.
Sure there is. You apparently have vast knowledge of the process that I don't. I'd love to hear what that entails.
quote:
It's obvious your opinion will not change.
Certainly not if you simply retreat on your position.
quote:
It doesn't mean you pull funds from one of the lowest pieces of the budget.
What is one of the lowest pieces of the budget?
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:08 am to MrCarton
quote:
Oh i see. so you don't really know who is doing what in the military?
What the hell are you talking about? It's a fact that only 17% of those who serve make it to retirement. i can easily tell you from my experience, how many got out and when.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:10 am to DisplacedBuckeye
There are some really mad people in this thread.
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 housing around this country. It's disgusting.
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 housing around this country. It's disgusting.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 10:18 am
Posted on 12/27/16 at 10:10 am to 13SaintTiger
quote:
You are talking about cutting 4% of something.
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.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 10:14 am
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News