Jump to content

Military retirement under attack


GoAround

Recommended Posts

Dudes, you want Liquid here, disagree as you may, he reads the posts, keep them up. Maybe someday in a meeting he will think of what he reads here. GC seems a bit less credible but he seems to be in some high level meetings, exec or not, he may bend an ear. The congressman is just that, he is still engaging which all of you should count as a win, he is a politician with a military background, did I say he was a politician?

I hate being the devils advocate, but I am right.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dudes, you want Liquid here, disagree as you may, he reads the posts, keep them up. Maybe someday in a meeting he will think of what he reads here. GC seems a bit less credible but he seems to be in some high level meetings, exec or not, he may bend an ear. The congressman is just that, he is still engaging which all of you should count as a win, he is a politician with a military background, did I say he was a politician?

I hate being the devils advocate, but I am right.

So you're saying dudes should keep disagreeing as they want, or are you're saying don't disagree as they might want because it might hurt their feelings and they might leave, and then dudes won't have some "connected" people in charge of the mess to chat with online? That would be a shame. Access really strokes the ego and is good for forum advertising no doubt.

Just like at work, everybody speaks their mind behind a closed door with the bros, but at the staff meeting in front of the leadership you see the true colors.

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dudes, you want Liquid here, disagree as you may, he reads the posts, keep them up. Maybe someday in a meeting he will think of what he reads here. GC seems a bit less credible but he seems to be in some high level meetings, exec or not, he may bend an ear. The congressman is just that, he is still engaging which all of you should count as a win, he is a politician with a military background, did I say he was a politician?

I hate being the devils advocate, but I am right.

100% agree, just saying if he wants to engage don't come spouting the party line as justification when its been shown to be not true. The "he's a politician" excuse has been used for far too long and we see where it has gotten us, that can no longer be an excuse for their conduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree is what I am saying, but access can be a benefit. If you don't agree with me on that, have fun, you need to go read a book on networking and it's impact on your future.

WalMart is always hiring.

Edited by matmacwc
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree is what I am saying, but access can be a benefit. If you don't agree with me on that, have fun, you need to go read a book on networking and it's impact on your future.

WalMart is always hiring.

Oh, no doubt. Sucking up to a drug dealer can be helpful too, if you need a few Gs on the side or perhaps an ex knocked off. Doesn't make it right, and it doesn't change the company you keep, or your actions around them. What you call "networking."

But I understand for a guy like you, it's a skill in your vocabulary to slob and suck. For a guy like you. As for me, the only way WalMart would enter this equation between you and myself, is if I bought the company, you applied for a job, and I told you "not just no, but hell no." Followed by,

"We don't hire ass kissing politician-wannabes without principle at WalMart. I know you're used to doing that in one uniform, but it won't be the WalMart uniform."

  • Downvote 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, no doubt. Sucking up to a drug dealer can be helpful too, if you need a few Gs on the side or perhaps an ex knocked off. Doesn't make it right, and it doesn't change the company you keep, or your actions around them. What you call "networking."

But I understand for a guy like you, it's a skill in your vocabulary to slob and suck. For a guy like you. As for me, the only way WalMart would enter this equation between you and myself, is if I bought the company, you applied for a job, and I told you "not just no, but hell no." Followed by,

"We don't hire ass kissing politician-wannabes without principle at WalMart. I know you're used to doing that in one uniform, but it won't be the WalMart uniform."

37068676.jpg

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, no doubt. Sucking up to a drug dealer can be helpful too, if you need a few Gs on the side or perhaps an ex knocked off. Doesn't make it right, and it doesn't change the company you keep, or your actions around them. What you call "networking."

But I understand for a guy like you, it's a skill in your vocabulary to slob and suck. For a guy like you. As for me, the only way WalMart would enter this equation between you and myself, is if I bought the company, you applied for a job, and I told you "not just no, but hell no." Followed by,

"We don't hire ass kissing politician-wannabes without principle at WalMart. I know you're used to doing that in one uniform, but it won't be the WalMart uniform."

Soo, are you hiring? Cause this airline boom isn't working out, just figured because you own WalMart. I will bring my own knee pads!

And I am done, back to why military retirement is under attack.

Edited by matmacwc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just joined MOAA, thanks sputnik :beer:

MOAA's thoughts.  Heck, I might even join.

 

http://www.moaa.org/factvsfiction/

 

Also just joined.

All officers should join MOAA; all enlisted should join AFSA. This is an escalating war of money and constituency sizes. Political finance reform is immensely important, but nobody can play with one hand tied behind the back.

Until you can vote, vote with your wallet. Sadly, lobbyists usually push more change than writing your congressman.

Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From that article:

"One House aide said that leadership may be waiting before making a decision on the retirement benefits to see how strongly the issue resonates back in lawmakers’ districts.

"If members come back and go to leadership and say they’re really getting hit on this, leadership might be in a mood to adjust it,” the aide said. “If they come back and there’s not as much passion behind it, that tells you it will be a completely different story.”

UFB. Most individual military members are not vocal with their congressional representatives, which does not bode well for us...

I wrote all 3 of my congressmen. Zero responses so far. Next stop is to their local offices.

Edited for poor formatting...

Edited by RTB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That means a four-star officer retiring with 40 years of experience would receive a pension of $237,144, according to the Pentagon. Base pay for active-duty top officers is $181,501, according to Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman. Housing and other allowances can boost their compensation an additional third.

unless there's some fuzzy math happening to stir the hornet's nest...uningbelievable.

Edited by day man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2007, Congress passed a Pentagon-sponsored proposal that boosted retirement benefits for three- and four-star admirals and generals, allowing them to make more in retirement than they did on active duty. The Pentagon had requested the change in 2003 to help retain senior officers as the military was fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and wanted to entice officers to remain on active duty.

Oh yeah. I remember that DoD marketing campaign. Let us screw you for 40 years and we will make it up to you. If they really wanted to entice officers to remain on AD why did it start in 2007, for you? Why not for Year Groups 1998+ with wavers for 30+ continuous days BOG in AFG/PAK 2001 and 2002.

Not in 1998, but sounds like a nice split. Captures all post-9/11 officers plus the ones who spent the most time in OEF/OIF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senators from VA that originally voted for pension cuts:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00281

...if the issue was this important to offer an amendment 3 weeks later, then they should have fixed it the first time, or voted no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...