Military retirement under attack

[GoAround]

Rusty, I don't need to know anything about their leadership outside of BODN. Their posts alone reflect their true colors. They probably read their bios everyday--basking in the light of the boxes they've checked, the fake PME degrees they've earned, and think they've "impacted" something in their organizations that they've "led"...I wonder what the airmen who've served for them (or as Chang would say, "serviced") think of their leadership style?

[Liquid]

Rusty, I don't need to know anything about their leadership outside of BODN. Their posts alone reflect their true colors. They probably read their bios everyday--basking in the light of the boxes they've checked, the fake PME degrees they've earned, and think they've "impacted" something in their organizations that they've "led"...I wonder what the airmen who've served for them (or as Chang would say, "serviced") think of their leadership style?

Wonder away. You don't know what you are talking about.

[Fuzz]

Wonder away. You don't know what you are talking about.

Sorry but personally Liquid has brought a lot to this forum IMHO, yeah there were some early growing pains but he provides good insight and valuable info. Also he hasn't, outside a some very specific topics, come across as one that chugs blue koolaid.

Liquid I missed your earlier post of about senior leadership not taking public stance, and I thought it was spot on. I've read several early AF leaders biographies and many were very opinionated about not interjecting the military into politics, I believe General Tunner didn't vote till he left the service. Unfortunately it leaves us without a strong voice and reliant on people removed from the organization (Tony Carr, AFA, MOAA), I think it is necessary for out government to function. For better or worse, I would be more concerned if I saw the CSAF or CJSC on TV advocating for or against a bill without solicitation from Congress, that's what happens in countries where the military plays a role in governing (Egypt, South American or African countries).

Edited December 27, 2013 by Fuzz

[brabus]

And although small in scope, the fact that it happened at all is an ominous sign that congress' attitude towards taking from those that serve is now fully on the table.

Shack. I was already suspicious of the "grandfathered" claim in the recent past, but this move just proved any military benefit, program, etc. is or can be on the chopping block with little to no challenge in Congress. The safe assumption that any rational military member will make is the 20 yr retirement will either be non-existent or a complete shell of what it was when all of us currently serving signed away years of our life. So now, what in God's name is my incentive to stay in for 20? Where will the AF find it's strong leaders to be SQ/CCs, OG/CCs and WG/CCs? The AF needs good leaders to stay in, but we've already seen large numbers of that group continuously get out ASAP; now the above precedent is set...what does upper management and Congress expect to happen next?

Here's what I get if I stay in for 20:

Pros:

1. Get to serve my country

2. I get to do the job I love to do (mostly...for now)

3. I work with great Americans, and I thoroughly enjoy the commraderie

4. The pay's not that bad

5. A retirement (but see Cons below)

Cons:

1. A retirement that is less than what I was promised when I signed up to give at minimum 11.5 yrs of my life (and my family's) to the AF.

2. Several more moves (maybe to places my family doesn't want to live...but we'll sacrifice and go anyways)

3. YEARS more away from my family spent in the shittiest places this world has to offer

4. Being continuously treated like a child by shitty management instead of an officer and an adult

5. Every year facing more and more roadblocks to doing the job/completing the mission

To sum it up, I can achieve all the pros listed above outside AD; I can certainly get at least 4/5. All while seeing the same pros on the outside, I can avoid most, if not all, of the cons listed. At least for me personally, I REALLY care about the extra 5ish moves and years away from my family. So I can suck up a couple of those other cons if need be.

There are certainly smaller items that could be added to each list, but these are the big ones. Don't get me wrong, I love my job as it stands RIGHT NOW, and I have and will continue to enjoy serving my country. But, as things continue to go in the wrong direction, I see less and less reason for a person to stay for 20+ years. Sure this is my opinion, but it's an opinion shared by A LOT of fellow officers. It's also an opinion that's backed by facts and precedence; difficult to argue against.

How about A1 reads the above, maybe 6-9 times for clarity, so they start getting a clue as to what is really happening outside the basement they work in. You all can blame the three glasses of Lagavulin for the long post.

[noodles]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2978559571001/veterans-angered-by-new-bill-to-cut-pensions/?playlist_id=928378949001 TC on Fox

[AnimalMother]

Once again, don't forget that we are playing their game here, they are free to change the rules at will. Political law is as capricious and transient as the politicians who make it. You're a fool if you trust them with your well being. If, in 10-15 years, military retirement has not undergone substantial changes, I'll eat my damn hat. Consider yourself very lucky if they grandfather you in. FENCE IN accordingly.

[Vicious3027]

I think that the underlying issue with this is that our gov't not only screwed over military retirees by cutting pensions, but also added to the resentment by giving a big 1-finger salute by not cutting entitlement spending.

It is just a damn shame that our elected officials would sellout for those who do not contribute a damn thing for this country.

My .02

[pawnman]

I think that the underlying issue with this is that our gov't not only screwed over military retirees by cutting pensions, but also added to the resentment by giving a big 1-finger salute by not cutting entitlement spending.

It is just a damn shame that our elected officials would sellout for those who do not contribute a damn thing for this country.

My .02

As congressman can tell you, the people receiving entitlement spending are a much larger voting block than the military.

[GoAround]

The AF needs good leaders to stay in, but we've already seen large numbers of that group continuously get out ASAP...

Add this to your list of cons: Less dwell time, increased deployment-to-dwell ratio, and/or higher chance to TDY/PCS for a 365 to Numbnutzistan. For every person in your year group that gets out, and who has an earlier STRD, you just got bumped up closer to deploying in their place. For example, lets say you are a Maj and your STRD is 2003 and you were #100 on the pecking order to deploy for another 180 or 365. If 75 Majors with an STRD later than 2003 separate, retire, get RIF'd, VSP, TERA, etc, then that moves you 25 spots closer to packing your bags again to the CAOC, air advisory group, convoy duty, etc.

"Doing more, with less"...an adage so true in this instance.

[Bender]

Go Around...that's a different thread. You meant "Doing more, with for less".

That video clip mentioned it being an "accident". Can someone explain to me how a bill provision can be an "accident"?

Is that like the situation where I meant to read the thing, but got distracted kissing babies and forgot?

Bendy

[GoAround]

Bendy, good catch on the word "accident", but TC cleared it up right away by saying he thought it was intentional and a precursor for further retirement reductions down the road.

[Bender]

I'm curious where the commentator acquired the concept from in the first place. TC did "cleared it up" right away, but followed that by "probably a conversation for another time". His words (and reaction), did not show surprise. While I'm sure they talked before the interview, I was not privy to this idea.

Of course, I am much more up to date on Afghani current events than those of my own country. I guess that makes me an easy target for budget reconciliation.

Bendy

[Karl Hungus]

The safe assumption that any rational military member will make is the 20 yr retirement will either be non-existent or a complete shell of what it was when all of us currently serving signed away years of our life. So now, what in God's name is my incentive to stay in for 20?

Been saying this for years. The writing has been on the wall folks.

To those who wish to make Active Duty a career, good for you. Do it because you love to serve your country, you love the people you work with, because you love whatever it is you do that helps whatever oft-misguided mission we're trying to accomplish. Do it because you love the bullshit and you've never known anything other than the AF after four wasted years at USAFA. Do it because (despite inept AF management that labels itself as "leadership") it's actually pretty cool what this organization is capable of when it isn't doing its best to make shit harder than it has to be. Do it for whatever reason you wish. But don't do it for a promised pension and healthcare plan, because you're going to be very disappointed.

[Fuzz]

Go Around...that's a different thread. You meant "Doing more, with for less".

That video clip mentioned it being an "accident". Can someone explain to me how a bill provision can be an "accident"?

Is that like the situation where I meant to read the thing, but got distracted kissing babies and forgot?

Bendy

The "accident" was including disabled retirees in the pension cuts, at least that's what Miculski said. Those that managed to make it out intact well you're just SOL..

[ShavedDogsAss]

...Each place I visit in my official capacity reminds me how great of a country we are and how great our military is. We need to preserve that power and that's what I have been trying to do...

How much of this greatness has been built on the foundations of the Cold War, bolstered by 9/11, then chipped away at over the last 6 years?

For all that those in now, or currently retired have done, it sickens me that the federal government has backpedaled on the most basic of promises given to career military men and women.

Congressman, I beg of you to take an honest look at how the greater political winds for indiscriminate cuts have forced such a poor target. Absolutist politics have no place in the american system. From all that we hold dear, the way to break a stalemate is not by including items each side detests, but by including positive steps forward with mutual motivation. Why must those who have arguably given the most for this country be forced to swallow the poison pills of adversarial budget building?

We've been fighting this war for all (or significant portions of) our careers. We are tired, but not exhausted. Those with ability will find other avenues to secure their retirements, which will only serve to exacerbate the chasm between the civilian and military world.

[Bender]

The "accident" was including disabled retirees in the pension cuts, at least that's what Miculski said. Those that managed to make it out intact well you're just SOL..

Ahh, of course. I had heard that...thanks for reminding me, Fuzz. That doesn't sound like much of an accident, but I suppose that's the "conversation for another time".

Bendy

[SpecialOpsTankerPilot]

No problem. It was one of the hardest votes I've taken, and I've taken some difficult ones. I fully get how people feel, and can empathize. I recently returned from a trip to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Liberia. Each place I visit in my official capacity reminds me how great of a country we are and how great our military is. We need to preserve that power and that's what I have been trying to do, disagreements with my recent votes aside

Why was it hard to vote for a bill that didn't save money, but rather took from military retirees and put it in other pockets while breaking faith with a group of individuals who have given more than anybody else for the nation?

I have a hard time understanding what you mean by "hardest votes." Similarly, I had a hard time understanding what it meant on your bio that "Captain Kinzinger now serves as a pilot with the Air Force Special Operations Command." Made a bit more sense after folks contacted you, and your bio was changed to, "Captain Kinzinger has served in the Air Force Special Ops, Air Combat Command, Air Mobility Command, and Air National Guard."

Do SpecialOpsTankerPilots refuel SpecialOpsFighterPilots?

[Bender]

Well, this is confusing. Are you saying that the "SpecialOpsTankerPilot" account has a similar characteristic to the "Liquid" account?

or

Are you just saying that the "SpecialOpsTankerPilot" account only has one post, thus it is a sock puppet screen name and that the previous quote from the "Liquid" account is applicable to said one post based on it's contents?

One is so much more exciting than the other...

Bendy

[Liquid]

Did you really create a sock puppet screen name only to bring this up?

You can respond with your original account.

WTF? I use the screen name "Liquid" so I can speak and listen in an unofficial capacity. Why would I create a sock puppet screen name that described what I did to make a comment I could easily make with my current name? I only post under this name. I will continue to do so until some anonymous coward posts my bio and allows other anonymous haters to attack me professionally. I'll be surprised if congressman posts here again. Have some respect for what makes this forum useful (the fact we don't put our signature block and contact info at the bottom of each post).

[deaddebate]

Somebody post a link when they find it.

video.foxnews.com/v/2978559571001/veterans-angered-by-new-bill-to-cut-pensions/?playlist_id=928378949001

Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

[BitteEinBit]

WTF? I use the screen name "Liquid" so I can speak and listen in an unofficial capacity. Why would I create a sock puppet screen name that described what I did to make a comment I could easily make with my current name? I only post under this name. I will continue to do so until some anonymous coward posts my bio and allows other anonymous haters to attack me professionally. I'll be surprised if congressman posts here again. Have some respect for what makes this forum useful (the fact we don't put our signature block and contact info at the bottom of each post).

I'm guessing it wasn't implied that Liquid = SpecialOpsTankerPilot, but rather the quote from Liquid regarding having access to a congressman and that what SOTP stated Is a post that rates the response "that's the best you've got?" I think Bendy was just making a funny...and it was.

I agree, lets keep the personal attacks to a minimum so we can continue to have access to good information that is being provided here. Sadly, the information I am getting here is more than what is coming through official channels.

[SpecialOpsTankerPilot]

Whatever happened to the congressman who supposedly frequented these pages a year or so ago. I would be interested to hear why he felt the need to stab his fellow service members in the back. http://kinzinger.house.gov

I had no idea who the Congressman was, until page 23 of this thread, and until the Congressman responded about voting to cut military retirements in response to the above.

If the individual using the handle "Congressman" didn't want to be a public servant discussing his public service on these boards, then that escaped me.

I have no other accounts on this board.

[Wendell]

My understanding was that "Congressman" has two logins, one from which he can post with anonymity and the other as "Congressman." This allows him to post as an aircrew member without having to attribute his comments to a US Congressman. The Congressman login was a way to post on here and get feedback from military members. I really do appreciate him posting on here, (while I am frustrated with his most recent vote) because it gives us close contact to a member serving in government (if he truly is who he claims to be). My hope is that by giving him the direct feedback to our frustrations with the cuts in the pension system that he and his party can rectify their error and attempt to regain the trust of the military community.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Wendell

[Liquid]

That was not directed at you, but I can see how my post was confusing. I wasn't trying to imply that you were using an alternate screen name, I was only using your quote as a response to SpecialOpsTankerPilot for creating a screen name just to attack congressman with a ridiculous non-issue. A shame, since his contribution is valuable to the forum. Your statement had captured my sentiments, so I quoted it instead of plagiarizing it.

EDIT: Bendy, sorry to disappoint.

Thanks for clarifying. Now I feel like an hyper-sensitive little b*tch. I'll get over it.

[Prosuper]

Is this the Congressman that everyone is referring to?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-air-forces-f-22-fighter-jet-making-pilots-sick/