Army "Right Sizing"

[Spekkio]

You're ignoring a whole lot of compensation if you're just including base pay. In fact, total AD military compensation totals $116,484,238,000 (includes MIDN/Cadets, but doesn't include reservists). The comptroller lists "active personnel costs" as over $130 billion (the dollars in the charts are in thousands just in case you wanted to have to multiply everything when reading data), but that includes PCS moves, apprehending deserters, etc. Both numbers are a far cry from $56.4 million/billion being thrown around. Considering that there are over 1.4 million AD personnel, the annual cost of paying them cannot be $56.4 million unless they on average made like $50 per year.

And comparing a projected retirement cost of $82.7 billion to today's AD costs while excluding almost half of military compensation is manipulating statistics just to make a point. Retirement costs will go up, but so will AD costs as AD servicemembers get CPI and BAH raises, too.

Bottom line: The DOD does not pay more money to retirees than AD servicemembers. 130 > 65. Any publication that says retirees take more DoD funds than AD is manipulating numbers to get people to agree with him. Is the ratio of AD to retirees nearly 2:1 or greater? If so, then it's not disproportionate. If not, then it is disproportionate but not as alarming as they are making it seem.

 

[Flash]

......$56.4 million/billion being thrown around. Considering that there are over 1.4 million AD personnel, the annual cost of paying them cannot be $56.4 million unless they on average made like $50 per year......

A mistake on my part, I meant to say billion every time I put million and corrected it.

 

[Hotdogs]

That $55B comes from the fund. Not some magical money shat out from the comptroller and the treasury, and not annotated on the DoD budget. I.e. Actual monies paid into the fund comes from the 3 sources. Normal cost payments, unfunded treasury liabilities, and investment income.

In reality $27B comes from the services, and the $55B is paid out from the fund itself. So $82B is really a fudge of the numbers....or that's what it seems to me. The total unfunded amortization payment from the treasury is the issue, and it's overdone, as you can see by 2027, It actually drops negative. To put this in perspective, the total fund amount in ten years triples from around $500B to $1.7T. The normal cost payments stay relatively flat till 2017 (not what is being made out to be), investment income steadily increases, and the unfunded amortization liability increases by around $3B each year. Interest from investments from the fund actually equal disbursements in 2021.

So yes, I think the fund is overshooting it's numbers, and the services are playing funny with finances that people don't understand, in order to cut money. The model that loosely calculates retiree disbursements is not exactly what I would call accurate, or at least that's the way it seems to be.

The WSJ is a good investment and stock market read, but the NYT can go suck it. Just my opinion, I don't read the economist. Not enough pictures.

As far as the dumb jarhead jab, I submit to you that U.S. Marines are smarter than our Navy brethren:
Exhibit A:



Go haze yourself.

Smilies and shit

 

[e6bflyer]

The Army...just wow. Those mouth breathers are going to be around for 15 or so more years.

 

[Renegade One]

The Army...just wow. Those mouth breathers are going to be around for 15 or so more years.

Surely that was in jest…yes?

 

[e6bflyer]

Surely that was in jest…yes?

No

Have you walked through an airport in the last 10 years? The army has lifted just about every barrier known to increase their numbers. Criminal convictions, high school diplomas, body fat, fitness, etc. Yes, they all volunteered to make the ultimate sacrifice, etc, but they are not the people you or I want to deal with as they come with a myriad of problems that doesn't exactly lend itself to a fighting force.

The army has acknowledged this problem publicly. It is not a secret.

 

[Renegade One]

No.

Okay.

 

[Lawman]

No

Have you walked through an airport in the last 10 years? The army has lifted just about every barrier known to increase their numbers. Criminal convictions, high school diplomas, body fat, fitness, etc. Yes, they all volunteered to make the ultimate sacrifice, etc, but they are not the people you or I want to deal with as they come with a myriad of problems that doesn't exactly lend itself to a fighting force.

The army has acknowledged this problem publicly. It is not a secret.

I've got soldiers that couldn't make it in landscaping or dishwashing...

That being said I had an epiphany talking with a drill sergeant who went Pilot once. Basically we figure somebody found it would be cheaper in the long run to plus up the ranks with rejects who get in trouble but get through tours filling an slot. Get them home, chapter them out, now you save on benefits being paid once they leave.

 

[Spekkio]

I've got soldiers that couldn't make it in landscaping or dishwashing...

I get what you're trying to say, but I think there are a lot of people who couldn't make it in those jobs. It's back-breaking work for crap pay and you generally get treated like garbage by your boss, whose only concern is making you work faster.

 

[Recovering LSO]

I've posted it before, but here it is again from another article - and really, what else needs to be pointed out in this debate?

I'll paraphrase for the skeptics:

"...The Obama administration reiterated on Thursday that any proposed changes to the military’s retirement system must grandfather in current service members and current retirees..."

Remember, if you like your retirement plan, you can keep it....

 

[e6bflyer]

I've got soldiers that couldn't make it in landscaping or dishwashing...

That being said I had an epiphany talking with a drill sergeant who went Pilot once. Basically we figure somebody found it would be cheaper in the long run to plus up the ranks with rejects who get in trouble but get through tours filling an slot. Get them home, chapter them out, now you save on benefits being paid once they leave.

On the flipside, I am 100 percent certain that a portion of these soldiers drawn from the "undesirable" pool actually have a vast amount of character, drive, and work ethic, and are actually going to make great career soldiers. I saw it on the boat. I had a division full of ASVAB bottom feeders. 10 percent of them were outstanding, 10 percent of them were complete f-tards that were a drain on the collective.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

10 percent of them were complete f-tards that were a drain on the collective.

they do say that 10% of your people will take 90% of your time, it looks like you identified your 10%

 

[roflsaurus]

I've posted it before, but here it is again from another article - and really, what else needs to be pointed out in this debate?

I'll paraphrase for the skeptics:

"...The Obama administration reiterated on Thursday that any proposed changes to the military’s retirement system must grandfather in current service members and current retirees..."

Remember, if you like your retirement plan, you can keep it....

Here's the letter from President Obama to the MCRMC that the article is referencing. Straight from the MCRMCs website, in the 5th paragraph.

http://www.mcrmc.gov/public/docs/ne...itary-Compensation-and-Retirement-Systems.pdf

 

[Brett327]

The problem with focusing on the Executive Branch is that they aren't the one writing the legislation that can/will affect military retirement. While they can make recommendations and nudge the process one way or another, it's the legislators who will ultimately determine the outcome. People shouldn't place much merit in promises made by those who don't own the process.

 

[Recovering LSO]

The problem with focusing on the Executive Branch is that they aren't the one writing the legislation that can/will affect military retirement. While they can make recommendations and nudge the process one way or another, it's the legislators who will ultimately determine the outcome. People shouldn't place much merit in promises made by those who don't own the process.

I think the difference in this administration though is its effort to own everything - whether for political gain or lack of trust in the existing processes.