Reply With Quote
Absolutely ridiculous.
Quite crazy tbh. Who the should have to wait 20-25 years for a pension check?
Interest and COL adjustmets should be built into that at the very least.
EDIT: I should bother to read the OP from time to time........
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...overhaul_n.htm
The biggest proposal? Preventing those who retire in the military with 20 years of service from drawing a retirement check immediately, and having to wait until 65. I expect a lot of tech jobs (like the one I'm in) to be severely undermanned if this goes through. A lot of airmen working in my career field are highly technical, and stay in the job partly due to the security of retiring after 20 years. (Because most of us could probably make at least 30K more on the outside than in the military.)
I'd be especially aggravated if this didn't have some form of grandfather clause. Of course, this will affect the enlisted folks much more than the officer folks.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Quite crazy tbh. Who the should have to wait 20-25 years for a pension check?
Interest and COL adjustmets should be built into that at the very least.
EDIT: I should bother to read the OP from time to time........
I don't see how that could ever get passed.
Yes, it is crazy. I served 11 years. Though I left early, I am still of the opinion that anyone who puts their life at the mercy of the government for 20 years deserves something worthwhile.
LOL..
Yes, I was going to correct you, but you seem to have found the grandfather clause by yourself.
Really?
Besides most the democrats being lib s, a good share of the republicans are too!
What's quite ridiculous is that the cuts have to come from personnel or retirement while we spend billions in failed projects like the F22 Raptor. You can't tell me there isn't any wasteful spending that need to be cut.
I didn't know the F-22 was a failure.
Link please.
I wouldn't call one easily fixed setback, a failure.
Read the article, then come back.
From 648 of the fighters for $139 million apiece to 188 planes at $412 million apiece.
Planes we didn't need to begin with.
Planes that will require 3,000 people to maintain and that for every hour of service require 45 hours of maintenance.
The F-22 problem is a serious one, and not easily fixable. (Else it would've been fixed already.) I believe it's not fully grounded; pilots still get in and fly monthly or so to be familiar with the aircraft, but it can't be flown above a certain al ude due to the issue mentioned in the article.
A software update for the first 183 planes costs $8 billion. Planes that have never even run a single mission.
You don't see a problem with that?
In all fairness... they are REALLY COOL planes.
Also, I think there will be significant blowback from the F-22. I think we will severely ramp down any sort of "classic warfare" equipment/training, and focus moreso on the nation-building/infrastruture protection.
In all fairness... they are REALLY COOL planes.
About the only thing they didn't do is equip them with thousand dollar commodes. Good thing Congress members don't fly them.In all fairness... they are REALLY COOL planes.
Who is proposing this? This is stupid.
Don't give them ideas
Banksters Great Depression: everybody BUT the banksters gets screwed, even the sacred and LONG-SERVING military.
Who is proposing this change to military retirement pay?
A "Defense Business Board" study, per this link:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/0...erhaul-072511/
So, you join at 18, go fight a couple of wars, maybe getting your nuts shot off, or losing your legs, and then you KNOW you are losing your job in your late 30s or early 40s to high year tenure, and you don't get until 65? Yeah, that'll pack the recruiting centers...
Manned fighters are outdated anyways.
Well this would qualify you for disability, I would think.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
