Flaco

Agreed, but you missed this part: Media reporting has raised serious questions about how much of the increase in disability cases is due to worse health among veterans versus more lenient agency decision making.[6] A 2014 paper in Psychological Injury and Law identified “collusive lying” between disability-benefits applicants and VA staff as one possible problem.[7] I have overheard several officers and enlisted openly discussing how the VA has instructed them on how to increase their disability rating to get more money for their "disabilities". That these individuals would freely discuss defrauding the US Government and the American people to me indicates the practice is widespread and is part of a larger cultural problem and increasingly entitled mindset. Although 10+ years of flying fighters has left its scars, I would find it terribly difficult to carry a VA disability rating as a functional man who is capable of providing for my family, regardless of the difficulty or pain I face in doing so.

Incentives and Swelling Disability Rolls Disability rolls have swelled steeply over the past decade. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the number of veterans receiving disability payments rose by almost 55 percent from 2000 to 2013, despite a 17 percent decline in the total population of living veterans. Federal spending on the VA’s disability program has nearly tripled over that same period.[5] Media reporting has raised serious questions about how much of the increase in disability cases is due to worse health among veterans versus more lenient agency decision making.[6] A 2014 paper in Psychological Injury and Law identified “collusive lying” between disability-benefits applicants and VA staff as one possible problem.[7] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/11/triple-dipping-thousands-of-veterans-receive-more-than-100000-in-benefits-every-year Thoughts?

CSAF Gen Robinson's 2017 Sight Picture: "5 Groups. Group B/E XYZ, Group B/E XYZ... Viper 11, Border South 2, Work North Immediately!"

Have you tried calling Cobra Kai? Me and 3 other bros from the squadron got our ATPs there 2 weeks ago. They are busy, so that may explain the delay in returning e-mail, but they are not a fly by night operation. I would try to call as well. 2 former German ENJJPT IP's. The Baron is a nice plane to fly and all of us felt very well prepared for the check ride.

Same. Got my 2nd payment month of signing.

Yep, doing that at Cobra Kai in August. I'll post my feedback once complete.

I just finished the Sporty's ATP-CTP course at ABX Air in Wilmington, OH. If you went full retard like I did and didn't do the written before the deadline, you will have to do the ATP-CTP as a prerequisite for the written. Great experience overall, considering I basically pissed away $5k by not doing the written in time. Academics were repetitive but the instructor was very knowledgeable and did the best he could to make the 30 hours entertaining. The sims were the highlight - 2 3-hour periods in a DC-9 full motion sim and 1 4-hour 767 sim (no motion) with a 30 year retired Delta guy who was hilarious. I think they are the cheapest ATP-CTP program at $4600.

I think you meant "piercing the corporate veil". Do you have some basis for your assertion that it is "ridiculously easy" to pierce? So you are recommending that the OP act as a sole proprietor?

LLC is the most common entity for small businesses. Wouldn't recommend doing anything as a sole proprietor. 1.) Probably $500 - 1000 for a professional (attorney or CPA) to set it up. This should give you the articles of incorporation and an operating agreement which defines how the company will be run. 2.) You could set up as a Delaware or Nevada LLC (business friendly states) and then file as a foreign LLC in the state in which you are actually doing business. When you move, simply file as a foreign LLC in the new state. Income from an LLC will flow through to your personal 1040, schedule C. You will pay state taxes to the state in which the business is conducted. 3.) Probably an LLC for most businesses. If you start to earn more than $25,000 / year, you will want to look into being electing to be taxed as an S-corp to avoid self-emploment taxes.

Just received this today (ANG): ALCON - Unit training managers received the attached information and I wanted to ensure all officers are aware of the requirement to have an advanced academic degree for O6 promotion ability in the future. (I do not have a firm date of when this will be required.) The following opportunity opened extending ACSC "On Line Master's Program" (OLMP) to Lt Col's needing advanced degrees. Typically this is only available to Majors.

I think that was a misquote in the article. The idea is a 1:3 dwell would be 1 year gone, 3 years back. Although according to the article and Hargett's testimony, it seems evident he and Guard leadership are willing to volunteer us for any dwell ratio so long as it retains force structure / iron in the Guard. The guard used to be 1 generation behind in terms of equipment - IE, AD was flying F-16's, we were flying A-7s. Guard leadership has made an incredible push over the last 25 years to get us the latest equipment, but at what cost? The F-35 will be the death of the Guard in my opinion, if we get it. Amen. I'm not sport bitching, as I have options right now as do many of my bros. I'm seriously concerned about the Guard's ability to maintain force structure in light of increased ops tempo and becoming more like the AD. If Guard leadership were playing long ball, they would push congress to get us airplanes suited to the homeland defense mission / occasional CAS deployment (Block 60's? Javelin?) and avoid the F-35 like the plague. Getting top of the line equipment isn't going to be good for the Guard - it will just ensure that we're deployed more, leading to retention problems. Gotta love Generals - they just can't help but beg for bright and shiny - after all, it won't be them looking down the barrel of the next 180.

This is somewhat Reserve/Guard-centric, but I thought it was worthy of general discussion. Over the last 10 years, I have watched with horror as the ANG has tried harder and harder to become like the active duty. Our leadership has yelled from the rooftops "We're just like active duty! We're an operational reserve, not strategic! Give us new equipment! Deploy us more!" Meanwhile.... The standard ANG AEF deployment has gone from 45 days to 180. ANG units are now being routinely tasked for non-voluntary, non-combat 90-120 day TSP deployments. And now it looks like the reserve component deploy to dwell ratio is in question. For many years, the RC's deploy to dwell ratio has been set at 1:5 vs. active duty's 1:2, which means that a 1-each fighter guy could expect to deploy 45 days roughly every 1 1/2 years. This was good living - and enticed many active duty brethren to come to greener pastures. Now Guard leadership is discussing reducing the Guard deploy to dwell to 1:3 (see article below). I'm wondering if the ANG is still being viewed as a good deal by those considering punching from AD. Are the incentives still there for an active duty bubba to join the Guard? Would you join the ANG knowing that a 180-day is right around the corner? Are the guys leaving AD going to the Reserves/Guard or are they getting out all together? I'm also interested in thoughts on the increasing Federalization of the ANG, which is supposed to be primarily a state organization. We are looking more and more like the active duty by the day. Is the Guard still the Guard? Will there be a time in the future when we are aligned so closely that the Guard is dissolved? Will ANG personnel (especially part-timers) endure the increase in ANG deployment length / ops tempo or will they start jumping ship for greener pastures (airlines)? Article Follows: The NGAUS president addressed the initial public hearing last week of the National Commission on the Future of the Army in Arlington, Va. Retired Maj. Gen. Gus Hargett offered five recommendations for the panel to consider. The eight-member panel was created by Congress to determine how the Army should look to meet coming threats. A major part of its charge is to determine the role of the reserve component, both the Guard and the Army Reserve. Its report is due to Congress Feb. 1, 2016. Also speaking was Maj. Gen. Edward W. Tonini, the Kentucky adjutant general and president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States. He told the panel the Army leadership feared the recommendations that would result from the commission's review of the Army. In 19 pages of written testimony presented to the commission one day earlier, Secretary of the Army John McHugh and Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the Army chief of staff, called reserve-component cost-effectiveness a "myth." Also, retired Maj. Gen. Ray Carpenter, who served more than two years as acting director of the Army National Guard before retiring in 2011, has joined the staff of the panel as executive director. Here are summaries of the three presentations: The NGAUS president told the commission that the service can rely on an accessible Army National Guard for the foreseeable future. Hargett said, "I think we have created a culture in the Guard where they expect to be used." In his remarks and his written testimony, Hargett gave five recommendations for the panel to consider. They are: - Sustain the combat role of the Army National Guard as an integral part of our nation's first line of defense; - Sustain the personnel end strength of the Army National Guard; - Continue the operational employment of Army National Guard units in missions overseas to sustain a base of operational experience; - Assure the Army National Guard receives modern equipment in order to bolster interoperability with the active component; and - Shape the Army leadership culture to assure that senior leaders have Total Force experience. When Hargett was questioned about dwell time for citizen-soldiers and whether a ratio of one year of deployment every three years could be sustained, he said, "I think the answer is yes." Dwell time is an important issue because the commission is to take a close look at the Army's Aviation Restructure Initiative, which, among other things, would remove all AH-64 Apache helicopters from the Guard and put them in the active component. Studies that portray the Army's plan as a money-saver use a dwell time ratio for the Guard of one year mobilized in every five-year period, or 1:5. "I'm not opposed to ARI," the NGAUS boss told the commissioners. "I think ARI is a step in the right direction." However, he said, when a more realistic and attainable dwell-time ratio between deployments is used, such as 1:3, ARI saves more money by keeping Apache helicopters in the Guard. Hargett's full written testimony is available on the commission website at www.ncfa.ncr.gov. It can be found under Reading Room. Tonini told the panel that dwell times are often misleading, especially when applying a recent ratio of 1:5 to a time of a national emergency. The bottom line for him, he said, is that the Army Guard is ready whenever needed. "The Guard is accessible," the Kentucky adjutant general said. "All you have to do is ask. We've never said, 'No.'

Ahh, the thought police. Glad to see you're still around. I wasn't complaining. I said I found it ironic that those that would like to see women assimilated in every combat role with men are also on the front lines of the SARC war on masculinity which has resulted in division among the sexes. To answer your question, my comfort level would depend on the situation as well as the individual, whether it was a woman or a man. I've never said that there aren't a handful of women that can meet the standards. What I'm talking about is policy. I don't think integrating women into frontline combat units will be worth the cost in the long run. But it's unlikely that the full cost will be visible to the American public until there's another no-shit, conventional war - the kind we haven't fought in many years. People's feelings < military effectiveness.

I watched the 1st episode of Cosmos last night on Netflix. I enjoyed his narration and plan on watching the rest of the series. I must admit that I chuckled when he said the best explanation that science has to offer is that the universe, the infinite universe full of billions of stars in which the Earth is a tiny pin-prick, was created by matter that was smaller than one single atom during the big bang. Then he said, "I know that sounds crazy, but..." I thought to myself, man, Biblical creation is almost as hard to believe as that. Almost.

It also has a questionable ID matrix and often shoots down friendlies.

I have both a wife and a daughter whom I love. For that reason, I would never encourage either of them to serve in a military role where combat is involved. Women do not possess the same capacity for physical violence as men. How many women have you met that you would fear in battle? I would not be empowering my daughter by giving her the false belief that she can serve equally with men in combat. I would merely be placing her at a disadvantage to our enemies who don't foolishly rank social progress ahead of military effectiveness.

What I find ironic is that the extremely annoying, over-the-top focus on SARC has actually undermined the integration of women into the military. The men in my squadron typically stay as far away from the women as possible and walk on eggshells when they are around lest one of us be hit by a SARC-2000 from close range for having a penis. Great for camaraderie.

You make it sound as if the choice between giving the interview and some veiled threat about flying an F-35 is a life and death scenario. She could have stood her ground and said no. Would it have hurt her career? Possibly. Would she have avoided sounding like a total hypocrite? Yes. Or perhaps careerism has become so rampant that you find it difficult to imagine that someone would take a stand for what they believe in if it had any potential of damaging their career. Either way, your comments are an indication of the culture that's become prevalent in the Air Force today. Ultimately, she decided to grant an interview about being the first female to (insert routine activity here). Twice. Makes it sort of difficult to take seriously her assertion that gender doesn't matter, doesn't it?

Fair enough. Also, I hope you won't take offense if I incorporate "nuclear powered ass-bots" into my lexicon. That shit's funny right there.

No hate for her. It was unfortunate she chose to be interviewed for it. As for the article, it is anything but innocuous. The in-your-face agenda pushing is yet another shining example of how the Air Force has gone full retard.

Of course they did. I don't think for one second the idea was hers. It's unfortunate she allowed herself to be a spokesperson for an agenda she ostensibly disagrees with. Just remember, you can't be pimped by the Air Force / media if you refuse to be their prostitute. No one ever said doing the right thing would be good for your career.

Sorry Steve, not buying it. If she really meant what she said, she wouldn't have done the article(s) in the first place. Don't want special treatment for being a (insert group here)? Don't participate in the story. Last time I checked, it's not mandatory to talk to the media.

"The plane doesn't know or care about your gender as a pilot, nor do the ground troops who need your support. You just have to perform. That's all anyone cares about when you're up there -- that you can do your job, and that you do it exceptionally well," she said in the Air Force statement. Oh, the irony....

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/01/air-force-songbook-again-cited-this-time-in-sex-assault-lawsuit.html Here we go, again.....

Well f*cking said, Maj Blair.