Retiree Benefits Could Be Cut?

mame

mame

Well-Known Member
Looks like those in charge of the Pentagon budget would rather build drones and bases than pay those who risked their lives in the line of duty... They shouldn't just look to cut the pensions just to cut them "for the sake of the budget", the packages should be at market value to ensure people are paid fairly... If the government still pays too much towards defense/military than they should be cutting back on all those bells and whistles - not taking from the easy target, the people.
 
VTXDave

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
Heh...And now we've got that crazy "motherfucker" that hasn't got a clue sending a request to our POTUS...
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/09/20/ron-paul-issues-open-letter-to-president-obama-concerning-cuts-to-veterans’-benefits/

Can you believe what that fool is saying! Quit subsidizing security for other nations! Bring our troops home! And here's the rub....instead of fucking them in the ass....Howzabout fulfilling our promise to these men and women who laid their lives on the line!

Ron Paul has simply lost his FUCKING MIND! I mean...you don't hear any other candidates saying crap like this...not even Obama, yeah?

Ron Paul most definitely is a turtle fucker...you guys have convinced me. Better to fuck our vets and military retirees. I'm with you now. :)
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
My two cents...

Things like cutting retiree benefits will be balancing acts. And the article has some serious gems that shed light on the subject...

Those critics also argue that under the current rules, 83 percent of former service members receive no pension payments at all — because only veterans with 20 years of service are eligible. Those with 5 or even 15 years are not, even if they did multiple combat tours. Such a structure would be illegal in the private sector, and a company that tried it could be penalized, experts say.

Last year, for every dollar the Pentagon paid service members, it spent an additional $1.36 for its military retirees, a much smaller group.

Citing the fiscal hazards and inequities of the system, the Defense Business Board proposal would allow soldiers with less than 20 years of service to leave with a small nest egg, provided they served a minimum length of time, three to five years.

The business board says that its proposal would reduce the plan’s total liabilities to $1.8 trillion by 2034, from the $2.7 trillion now projected — all without cutting benefits for current service members.

“If the trend continues, it will call into question the military’s ability to do other things, like buy equipment, do maintenance, train troops and equip them,” said Nora Bensahel, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a nonprofit organization with ties to the Obama administration.
“At some point, the cost pressures by the retirement benefits will really start to impede military capabilities.”
 
sso

sso

Well-Known Member
around here, interestingly, politicians gave themselves a hefty raise, really right before all the financial trouble.

benefits and retirement packages far beyond normal people.

imagine it, the people say "boss me around, make me your bitch then take as much money as you want"

what a fucking job, how did anyone ever think of giving it to anyone?

what the fuck are we? masochists each and everyone?
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
SSO,

I agree...why does a one-term congressman get a retirement package for life, and a solider have to dedicate 20 years to get something similar?

Total BS, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top