nsplayr

Karl and Rainman both made excellent points; different strokes for different folks and honestly we need people in both categories. Unfortunately our retirement system only has something for group B, group A can suck an egg. Yea yea we get the pride of serving, our ratings if we decide to fly on the outside (well I'm a nav so not so much there...) and etc., but everyone who serves gets those things and I'd say most genuinely get value from them. It's not all about the money like Rainman said, but for some people (group A) it is a little about the money and when our time is up and our commitment is served it can make sense to move on to a different lifestyle and/or career. A system that incentivised all service members to contribute to their retirements (TSP matches for group A folks, a guaranteed 50% pension for group B people) seems fair to me.

And if there were a different system, even the plain old FERS every desk-jockey civilian federally employee has, you'd be getting at least several hundred dollars a month once you're actually old and will need the money. Under the current system, if you do punch before 20, it's thank you for your service and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. At least the GI Bills provide lasting benefits to veterans who get out before 20 if they choose to actually use them. The best part of the current system is that you start collecting full benefits potentially at age 38 (or more like 42 for officers), and that's the most costly part too. 50% of your pay when you're 95% likely to be working another full-time job is a ridiculously good deal, one not afforded to almost any other high-risk career field. The current system pays nothing to people who do punch before 20 years and pays a lot to working age "retirees," not ideal at all IMHO. Reform doesn't have to equal a worse deal but I guess if you're a fan of the current deal it's worth the fight to keep it. The best system to me would reward some service, generously reward long-term service (20+ years), and would be given when a person is actually retired or disabled rather than 42 years young and on to lucrative career #2. I'm not hopeful of change anytime soon though so I doubt it's worth a panty-twisting.

I'm not very narrow in any way or angry right now, I'm curious. What military aircraft refer to their copilots as First Officers? Mine doesn't, so that's minus one from the 69 possibilities. If you're talking airlines cool, just be clear b/c around here we're assuming military for obvious reasons.

On the Starship Enterprise?

To pile onto all the numbers I found before, the official formula for military retirement is 2.5% x years of service (at least 20) x average top 3 salary. You can do the math, but our retirement system is much more generous than that of Congress, they (and all other federal civilian employees) are just vested much sooner. They also don't get shot at regularly and etc. etc. but that's kinda why they pay us more. Congress' base salary is also much higher than all but the most senior military positions, so that helps to jack up their numbers as well (i.e. average top 3 salary for a Lt. Col. isn't gonna be $174,000). So for anyone arguing that Congress gets "full retirement after a year" you're wrong. After 5 years, it's a qualified yes, but it's not "full retirement" from the perspective of a military person. 2.5% < 1.7% and that makes a big difference over the long haul...especially when military benefits kick in right away and FERS pensions apply to those actually of retirement age. Honestly I wish there was an option when you joined to either be on the current military system (more generous but must hit 20 years to be vested) or to be a part of the regular FERS system. In FERS, regular federal employees get TSP matching and are vested immediately, which would be an attractive option to all of those who are looking to punch before 20 years. There are obvious reasons the military doesn't want to change the system because they want people to stay the full 20 and once you reach a certain threshold of service they likely have you by the balls, but if Congress really wanted to increase quality of life for most military service members (i.e. those who don't stay in a full 20), letting us choose FERS would be a good deal. If I punched at the end of my nav school commitment (i.e. As an O-3 after 7 years of service) I'd get about $358 per month in 2011 dollars in pension rather than $0 that I'll get under the current system. Plus all that flight pay I've been putting in TSP would have been matched by the government dollar for dollar up to 5% of my base pay, slightly less than doubling my current contributions. Ain't much but it ain't nothing either.

Yea, that'd be nice but manning-wise it's just not possible I don't think. It either adhere to that policy or man the shops, either/or unfortunately. With damn near everyone pushing 3-4 additional duties we can't really afford to have new guys not helping in the Global War on Queep (GWOQ).

This is the kind of stuff Geithner was talking about when he said that Treasury could take "extraordinary measures" to keep the government under the debt ceiling until August rather than letting us bust through it sooner. If we could quick dicking around and get a deal on this it would help everyone out. I'm glad Speaker Boehner recently came out and said he wants a deal within a month.

Damn, well done sir This should be a recurring thread; BAMF of the week/month/whatever. Too many good stories of baddassery go unnoticed among all the bullsh*t normally on the news.

I've heard from the old heads that this used to be the standard in AFSOC...if there were any new LTs in the squadron they didn't have additional duties because their one and only duty was to become decently proficient in the aircraft and the mission. Sounds like a sweet concept...

Yea dude, that quote was bad ass. BAMF > bank robber with fake gun.

Not knowing your date of rank for the 2Lt-1Lt changeover is absolutely idiotic. Seriously...it's generally very near the day you commissioned, except 2 years later, shouldn't be that goddamned hard to remember. vMPF is your friend if you're iceberg is too full for that particular penguin. Big "2" on the making the dudes buy drinks. I too laugh at the completely unnecessary pomp and circumstance of the 2Lt finance officer promotion party (and I've seen pics from my friends recently), but that's their tradition. In a flying squadron you buy you bros drinks and get sh*tfaced, embrace that tradition and be glad it's a hell of a lot more fun than putting on service dress and standing on a stage with your SQ/CC. LTs not saluting each other in appropriately low-threat situations, smart & very bro-like. LTs not having enough SA on when they themselves pin on new rank and then quibbling that they were "too busy," give me a f*cking break.

I guess flying squadrons and LTs aren't the unified group of slackes Col. Jar Jar thought...too bad he took the time to write that article.

Conjecture. Have that same Lt/Captain walk down Disney in uniform and then have them explain to you the virtue of always being saluted. Bro rules shouldn't apply in situations where it will be detrimental to the reputation of the squadron you represent. In the squadron parking lot, I will wear my morale patches with pride (and so will the SQ/CC) and probably not salute my O-3 bros because they are my bros. I'll roll my sleeves up and guys who chew might spit on the ground. Outside the Wing HQ or the gym or clinic or wherever else, we will follow the rules to a T because the last thing the Boss needs is some Chief or uptight Lt. Col. coming to him asking why his Lts aren't following the rules. Part of the unwritten rule is to continue to have SA on your surroundings when applying the other unwritten rules.

I tread carefully with the "one up one down" attitude. I'll gladly salute any and all Majors and above and will only potentially consider not saluting a Captain who I know extremely well and who I know shares a similar view of CGOs being bros. To me the written rules stop at the FGO level; that's my accepted level of risk in bending the rules. Clearly the correct answer is that yes, by reg, lower-ranking officers will salute higher-ranking officers, and that unwritten rules to no apply. However, since this thread is titled No Rank Amongst Lieutenants, I can 100% agree with that because we're all f*cking lieutenants.

Dear God, I would plow her like a field in the spring time. I don't care if she's a coked out whore, she looks like she could take a dick, and some girls pride themselves on their dick-taking abilities.

If the distinction between 2Lt and 1Lt is so important why does my ID card just say LT? Maybe we should start a war on ID cards so we're not losing credibility with the enlisted force every time we roll through the gate /sarcasm

Detailed report attached after 6-9 second google search. The answers are there. This also applies to Congressional staff. For members elected after 1984, they are covered by FERS. They can receive a pension after 5 years of service (so greater than 2 terms for members of the House, less than 1 term for Senators). The formulas for benefits are in the report, but basically it's: average of top 3 salary x 0.017 x years of service. Base salary for members of Congress is $174,000, and if we're talking 5 year minimum to earn the pension, your minimum payout is $14,790 per year. The 1.7% only applies only to the first 20 years of service, it's back to 1% like other federal employees after that. There's also TSP and social security benefits but we should know all about how those work. It's a nice plan (and the starting salary is very legit) and I like how you can be vested in a shorter amount of time rather than the 20 or nothing of the military. But it's not some ridiculous golden parachute of internet lore like a lot of people think. It's very similar to what all federal employees receive, except that regular federal employees are immediately vested, no need to serve at least 5 years. Regular federal employees have a similar computation found here, but it boils down to 1% of your top 3 salary for every year of service (or 1.1% if you retire over age 62 with at least 20 years). Basically Congress gives themselves the same kicker given to, "Air Traffic Controllers, Firefighters, Law Enforcement Officers, Capitol Police, Supreme Court Police, or Nuclear Materials Couriers." The facts are out there if only we knew how to find them... Edit: forgot to attach file. Retirement Benefits for Congress.pdf

I will counsel any second lieutenant that salutes me that if it happens again I will punch them in the face. It goes without saying, you're a f*cking lieutenant. Jesus. It's also an unwritten rule not to be gay (not homosexual, that's allowed now, just gay as in like this guy). With all due respect, the good Col. has broken unwritten rule #1. From the article: Which one of you 2Lts is ready for the fast-track to command? Do you solemnly swear to increase queep at every opportunity? Will you vow to totally lose focus on the actual mission after 6-9 exec/staff/school assignments? Are you prepared to be promoted BTZ? And in his thrilling next article he's gonna push club membership? Give me a f-ing break sir, with all due respect of course... Time for bed...so angry...

I agree that if we're going to do cuts it should include everyone; notice how one of those specifically mentioned groups not included in the freeze was military personnel. I don't think a federal government pay freeze does dick for our long term problem but symbolically, yes, we should all be in it together, including Congress and the armed forces. That's why symbolic cuts are kinda pointless...they do nothing to solve the long-term problem yet they're painful to the everyday guy who relies on that paycheck, sometimes after doing a great deal of service to their country (military/police etc.).

Comments button worked for me. On this Memorial Day, I'd like to take a moment to remember all the broken egos of our brave TIB servicemembers...him him.

Obama has proposed this for all almost non-military Executive branch employees already. Including DOD civilians. Much more saved right there than a similar freeze for the 535 members of Congress although symbolically they can go for it.

The $400 billion cut is over 10 years, so by 2023 since the budget request for 2012 is already submitted and includes the original $400 billion Gates has already identified. Story. Most of the time pay "cuts" are really either freezes or measures that slow their growth (like smaller cost of living increases, etc.). Honestly, if we're serious about cutting deficits all of a sudden, why is this not on the table? Everything should be on the table so the American people can really see what the options are, no sacred cows on either side if we're being serious. The voters will see that the sentiments to "make cuts" are not nearly as easily met when the things that are eating the vast majority of our budget are quite popular (i.e. not foreign aid, the department of education, etc.). WRT DoD, it's either make cuts to personnel costs (either less troops or same number and pay them less) or cut R&D, procurement, or operations. A lot of reductions are projected from drawing down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and obviously some major procurement items have been cut recently as well. I don't want a reduction in pay or benefits for active military members but if cuts are gonna come you realistically have to expect that they will hit that aspect of defense spending. Some of the proposals have even been very reasonable (Tricare fees) but have met a firewall of categorical opposition that defies logic. Attached good report on DOD personnel costs with a sh*t-load of graphics and numbers on the issue. Forgot to attach and lost the file...

Could this potentially be a case of non-judicial punishment? Nothing would humiliate me more than to pen a queepy article and have it posted on af.mil to forever enshrine my commitment to the Party line bullsh*t our AF has become. That would be a creative commander.

Clearly this is a box you need to check to make Chief/Colonel. Honestly... Unfortunately, most of the comments were supporting the Captain's sentiment. While I agree crisp salutes are great and all, come on, that's what you're gonna put your name to on af.mil? My god...the rationale of people in the comments. If I hear one more time "If you can't salute properly how can we trust you to fly a multi-million dollar airplane?" I will choke that person out.

Saw that on an international flight. Pretty good, informative without being boring.