Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Yea, POTUS doesn't have veto power and doesn't communicate what he wants in legislation to his majority party in the Senate. Nope, not his fault at all.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Army "Right Sizing"
- Thread starter picklesuit
- Start date
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
Where have I heard this before, I remember hearing something like "if you like your health plan you can keep it"
fuel meet fire
It's not that simple, but you know that. Could POTUS veto an otherwise acceptable NDAA? Sure, but he has to weigh the price of doing that against all the other factors in play. Saying POTUS could just veto it ignores the complexity of the issue and the process. In this particular instance, it's Congress that wrote and passed the law and I think this thread is replete with justifiable outrage aimed squarely at those members. Blaming it on POTUS seems misguided to me.
It was also interesting, and not surprising, to note how many of the young, outstanding Sailors on the roof were undesignated airman dropped from AW and SPECWAR programs. Of course when they struck, AIMD usually sucked them up, which is good for the fleet and them, but it was still sad to see them go.
Another proposal to save money in the military retirement system. This one takes a crack at TRICARE. Again, the notable component of this proposal is taking aim at those retirees of "working age". In other words, retire from the military before age 60-65 and continue to work, and they will be looking to pare your benefits.
http://www.militarytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014301170020
http://www.militarytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014301170020
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
I know many working age military retirees that barely get by after retirement for a while, this could sink them, or maybe guys knowing this is on the horizon wouldn't even stay until retirement.
Just another reason we should get onboard the first-world bandwagon with single payer.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
A better title: Fuck over a bunch of people, save 1.5% on DoD budget and 0.25% on federal budget.
Sub-headline: Congress pushes to use savings to fund illegal immigrant welfare; considering increasing foreign aid to Muslim Brotherhood.
Also, one of the costs is chronic care for retirees. According to one former Marine, there's a bit of a culture problem regarding servicemembers who seek proper medical treatment. Can't say I necessarily disagree with him. You're sick? Back hurts? Knee problems? Here's a 800 mg Ibuprofen, go back to work.
Sadly we lost a CPO who had cancer and didn't catch it until it was too late.
Sub-headline: Congress pushes to use savings to fund illegal immigrant welfare; considering increasing foreign aid to Muslim Brotherhood.
Also, one of the costs is chronic care for retirees. According to one former Marine, there's a bit of a culture problem regarding servicemembers who seek proper medical treatment. Can't say I necessarily disagree with him. You're sick? Back hurts? Knee problems? Here's a 800 mg Ibuprofen, go back to work.
Sadly we lost a CPO who had cancer and didn't catch it until it was too late.
Last edited:
Not looking for a major thread jack, but single payer would just amount to trusting uncle with another promise and ultimate control over those benefits. If you don't trust the government to make good on the pension they promised you, then why would you trust them to pay for the latest most expensive cancer treatment for your son (wife, father)? Breaking the former promise may make your life more difficult. Breaking the later may be more costly.
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20...ould-restore-COLA-reduction-military-retirees
This should get interesting. I foresee Dems pushing this legislation while Republicans and DoD will most likely oppose it because it comes from OCO funding.
Color me pessimistic, but I also see this as a political gimmick that gives Dems the opportunity in upcoming elections to say "look, we tried and the Republicans said 'no'". Alas, this implies either party much cares about the AD/Ret/Vet vote.
This should get interesting. I foresee Dems pushing this legislation while Republicans and DoD will most likely oppose it because it comes from OCO funding.
Color me pessimistic, but I also see this as a political gimmick that gives Dems the opportunity in upcoming elections to say "look, we tried and the Republicans said 'no'". Alas, this implies either party much cares about the AD/Ret/Vet vote.
Last edited:
Because 1% of the country's voice vs 100%.
Agree, except I think we will be surprised how many DEMS fail to support it. Still, the majority will since it the perfect political bludgeon you predict. Setting aside the merits of the new proposal or the fairness of the COLA adjustment, consider the logic that permeates the majority of the Senate. In an effort to restore a current benefit whose cut saved the government $6B, they will instead increase spending $30B for a laundry list of nice to have benefits almost no one in the military considers a high priority. Sure, they say they will find the money elsewhere. But that is jut moving around deck chairs. If there are funds in those accounts/budgets to be diverted for new programs that were only recently dreamed up, then maybe they should have been cleanly cut in the first place. Cowards. They are snuggling up to vets like kissing babies in a parade during a re-election campaign. MOAA and other special interest/affinity groups with a claim on a portion of the US budget are accomplices in the coming bankruptcy of America
http://communities.washingtontimes....r/2013/feb/3/your-401k-about-be-nationalized/
Or the government can just take control of everyone's retirement accounts, because I'm sure it will be very responsible with the money, instead of just spending everything and saying "whoops" 30 years later.
Or the government can just take control of everyone's retirement accounts, because I'm sure it will be very responsible with the money, instead of just spending everything and saying "whoops" 30 years later.
This concerns me quite a bit because of how this will get played/spun - if it gets there.
In your best Rachael Maddow voice: "now the GOP is holding the country hostage with the threat of default, again. And all over a measly 1% COLA increase for the very small number of military retirees..."
That bit of brinksmanship, with military pensions as a pawn, should do a lot to help already strained civil - military relations.