WTF...are we turning into Egypt?

Why do people join the military in the first place? It sure isn't for the money. I had two scholarships when I joined. How much more money could I have made if I had gotten even one degree before I was 21? I joined the military because it was the right thing to do and something I looked forward to. My uncles had joined but my father didn't. He was medically unfit at the end of World War II. So maybe I'm making up for him. In any event I could have made so much more money out of the military than in and that also goes for teaching.

Why should pensions be capped at a national average Socialist Johnny? If I can create wealth in the millions every year why should I be limited to an amount that someone who collects beer cans can have? Would you limit athletes to what? $100,000 a year when they made the team they played for hundreds of millions? How much should someone who never did a serious day's work in their life get? $25,000 a year? $50,000 a year? How about that same $100,000 a year? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Your first paragraph has a lot of rhetoric I can't answer, however, I am sure there are a lot of folks who join the military because college isn't an option. In my circumstance, the military was an option but it really wasn't, it was never discussed, we were closer to VietNam than Iraq and the national outlook was a little different.

Not everybody that goes to college makes six figures, or even has a job. Some guys go into the military to save their lives from the streets or to just do something. To get a free education. I don't believe everything they say, there is some self-serving in some who join. Vets are human, some are heroes, some are slimeballs, they know who they are. In all due respect to the former, this incessant barrage of lip service to the military is a disgusting overreaction to the equally disgusting disdain VietNam Vets experienced. If half the citizens of the US were half as patriotic as they claim to be, we'd have a ready army of millions of persons simply with civilian volunteers.

As for your second paragraph, I'm working my theories out, it's the guys who claim to know what works for millions of people you have to watch out for. Big picture, I think pensions should be ended rather than capped, because they are unsustainable. You can't keep paying everyone that works for you, unless the average lifespan and/or the overall population is decreasing. Neither are.

If you can create millions every year you should be able to save enough to not need a pension. As you, I advocate not paying people who aren't working. I'm just adding that it doesn't matter that they worked last year.

I'm not going to put a number on the athletes; I think the average man should berate, disdain, and withhold any support of the athletes and those within that system until the dollar amounts come down. In my threads against the greed of sports, I am not advocating the greed of owners, the owners and advertisers are just as despicable. There is usually a specific reason to attack the players, and the players must be identified as a resource we have a huge supply of.

Who is to determine what a serious day's work is? Am I to consider a hedge fund traders day's work more serious than a hedge trimmer? I consider the former's work to be of negative value. Does Adam Sandler do a serious day's work? Most people don't like that type of work from him. Not sure serious is a good word in this case, but if you mean persons who don't work, I would pay them nothing. I would have work for them, and if they accept it they can have food, medicine, and shelter if they need it, money if not. I don't know where you live but I don't have to get too far from my house to see things that need doing.

Socialist Johnny? Are you sweet talking me? Thanks you, but I'm into ladies. Socialism, communism, and capitalism all have it in common that corruption will undermine them. Nothing is less American than dismissing an idea in its entirety because of its label. To say Marx never had a good idea because of the actions of Stalin and Lenin is closed minded.

Don't be such a dimwit.

First, the number of 3 and 4 star generals that can make the $200,00 is quite small. And you are really only talking about the incremental change - the difference between the current annual pay and the new annual pay.

And think about the amount of money that gave up by staying in the military for 35 or more years. What could Colin Powell have made in the private sector compared to the $179K that he was capped at?

No one stays in the military for 35 years except for love of country. The money they make in retirement will never compensate for the money they lost while on active duty. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You normally do not post idiotic bullshit. Not sure how anybody can defend paying a person more in retirement than during their working days.

The reason they can make so much leaving the military is because of crony capitalism and the revolving door between Defense Contractors and our upper echelon military brass.

You obviously do not understand how that became a huge problem in .....drum roll please, Egypt.

We already live in a country where folks are scared to say anything bad about the military. My God, the branch of the government that has huge waste and fraud, folks like you are scared to even discuss.

You normally do not post idiotic bullshit.

The reason they can make so much leaving the military is because of crony capitalism and the revolving door between Defense Contractors and our upper echlon military brass.

You obviously do not understand how that became a huge problem in .....drum roll please, Egypt. Originally Posted by WTF

You're still a dimwit.

If what you say about a revolving door between the DoD contractors and military brass is true, then it makes sense to pay them more to keep them from doing that, right? You undermined your own point.

And a retired general with 35+ years will never make enough money to replace the income he lost if he left the military after 10 years or less.

First, DoD contractors do not pay that well, even to senior employees. I know, I once worked to one. They live and die by government contracts - many of which are "cost plus" - so their profits are relatively modest. Noe of them are Google or Apple. So, don't get the idea that a general who goes to work for Northrup is going to make millions per year.

Second, if he quits the military after 5-10 years, he can work for about 40-45 years in private business. If he quits the military after 40+ years, he will have about 5-10 years of active work life left before he will retire for real.

Anyone with the smarts to make it to general is going to be successful in private life and make good money. They won't all be Ross Perot, but they will be comfortably upper class.

So, there is no way that the numbers will work out financially in favor of a long military career. Anyone who is planning a long military career so they can get rich at the end needs to have their head examined.

Finally, there is the issue of delayed gratification. If a smart guy quits after 5 years of service and becomes a lawyer or a business executive, he gets to earn good money much sooner and enjoy it much sooner - like when he is still young and his children are still young.

And he has a lot more free time and vacation time. No deployments, especially overseas. No moving every 3-5 years.

And all that assumes you don't get killed before you retire.

So the idea that we are going to turn into Egypt because top officers are getting better pensions is ridiculous. If it could happen, don't you think it would have happened by now?

You're still a dimwit.

If what you say about a revolving door between the DoD contractors and military brass is true, then it makes sense to pay them more to keep them from doing that, right? You undermined your own point.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

There were two points....one of the being love of money. You undermine your rebuttal and strengthen my love of money point.

I will bitch slap the rest of your nonsense after I finish a lunch date.

There were two points....one of the being love of money. You undermine your rebuttal and strengthen my love of money point. Originally Posted by WTF

How so?

If it was the love of money that drove them, they would leave the military as soon as their first hitch was up. Anything you have to say beyond that is idiotic.

I love how you seem to think that senior military officers must take a vow of poverty. Have you taken one?

I will bitch slap the rest of your nonsense after I finish a lunch date. Originally Posted by WTF

Yes, please do.

I'm fascinated to find out how a pension increase of $84,000 (from $135K to about $220K) given to a small number of retired senior officers in their 60s and above is going to turn us into Egypt.

How so?

If it was the love of money that drove them, they would leave the military as soon as their first hitch was up. Anything you have to say beyond that is idiotic. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You dumb muther fucker, to make money in the real world of Defense Contracting , you have to spend time in the military. Build up relationships. That does not happen if you quit after the so called first hitch. You act as if getting a job in the mail room and then quitting will put your skills in demand as much as working your way up from the mail room to CEO would.

In fact Robert Gates said we had to many Generals....

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/08/how_much_does_an_army_general_ cost_taxpayers.html

How so?



I love how you seem to think that senior military officers must take a vow of poverty. Have you taken one?


. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I never said that....I said they must make a choice....LOVE OF MONEY or LOVE OF COUNTRY.

It can't be both.

How so?
Yes, please do.

I'm fascinated to find out how a pension increase of $84,000 (from $135K to about $220K) given to a small number of retired senior officers in their 60s and above is going to turn us into Egypt. Originally Posted by ExNYer

When idiots like you defend bullshit pay hikes like these without question.

That is how it starts. The Defense Industry is one powerful lobby. If you do not understand that.....well let's just say I'm wasting my time with you. They are taking care of their own. The people at the top.

The people at the top want to limit the average soldiers pension but are increasing theirs by almost double and you defend that BS?

Actually there is a lot to be said for commie girls (if you can stomach the rhetoric and body hair). They don't think very clearly and they are willing to do anything, and I mean anything, if it is for the cause.

there is something under that dirt and tatoos

You dumb muther fucker, to make money in the real world of Defense Contracting , you have to spend time in the military. Build up relationships. That does not happen if you quit after the so called first hitch. You act as if getting a job in the mail room and then quitting will put your skills in demand as much as working your way up from the mail room to CEO would. Originally Posted by WTF

There is your first false premise - that ex-military have to go into the "real world" of defense contracting in order to make good money.

And the guys who quit after the first hitch can make money in ANY field, I never said that had to go into defense contracting. They can start a second career - they are only about 30. A retired captain or major can become an attorney (I know several), doctors (I know one), business exec, law enforcement, politics, etc.

And every year they work in those other fields they make MORE money than they would have if they stayed in the service. And that extra wealth compounds over a 30-40 year period.

There are plenty of ways to make good money that don't include being DoD lobbyists. Can you post any links that cite how many retired generals go to work for defense lobbyists?

How many ex-military officers are military/foreign affairs commentators on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc.? How many become lecturers/speakers? Or professors? How many just retire for real?

And doesn't giving them an $84K increase in their pensions make it LESS likely they will do ANY kind of work after leaving the military - including working for defense contractors?

I never said that....I said they must make a choice....LOVE OF MONEY or LOVE OF COUNTRY.

It can't be both. Originally Posted by WTF

Really, why? Because you say so?

And again I ask, how does keeping the retirement pay of generals low stop them from going to work for DoD contractors? There is a dopey logical disconnect there that you just don't see - or refuse to.

That is how it starts. The Defense Industry is one powerful lobby. If you do not understand that.....well let's just say I'm wasting my time with you. They are taking care of their own. The people at the top. Originally Posted by WTF

The defense industry is powerful, but not because generals go to work as lobbyists for it. They are powerful because they have so many politicians in their back pocket. They spread spending from defense contracts across as many congressional districts as possible and politicians therefore treat the defense budget like a jobs program.

Nancy Pelosi opposes all kinds of military spending except on weapons systems that are made in her district. New reports are full of stories of the military being forced to buy more tanks or planes than they want - and even being forced to buy ones they don't want at all - because a Congressman got an appropriation bill into the military budget.

A retired general won't be able to get an active duty general to buy tanks that are rapidly becoming obsolete on the modern battlefield. A Congressman with an appropriation can make him buy them.

And there is a reason why Congress had to create a base-closing commission back in the 1990s. Even when the military told them what bases should be closed because they no longer served a purpose, Congress could get its shit together and just take the military's recommendation. Evey Congressman refused to allow bases in his district to be closed. So, finally they had to appoint a commission to shut them down.

The culprits are CEOs and corporate lawyers wheeling and dealing with members of Congress. If you want to reduce the power of the defense lobby, sever that connection.

The people at the top want to limit the average soldiers pension but are increasing theirs by almost double and you defend that BS? Originally Posted by WTF

I never defended any such thing. Stop trying to put words in my mouth, IBHankertwat.

Jeez, after reading all that, it seems the only logical conclusion is to make military service mandatory. Simply decide at what age it starts, and all our youth will become extremely proficient productive wealthy people regardless of what field they choose.

Preemptive: I know that isn't what you're getting at, but this assumption those men are forfeiting money is ludicrous, similar to saying Joe Namath forfeited three SuperBowls by retiring. If they want private sector money take the risk, get in the private sector and get it. You get paid for what you do, not what you could have done.

We already live in a country where folks are scared to say anything bad about the IRS. My God, the branch of the government that has huge waste and fraud, folks like you are scared to even discuss. Originally Posted by WTF

$62.5 million in BONUSES (Federal workers?)

And again I ask, how does keeping the retirement pay of generals low stop them from going to work for DoD contractors?

. Originally Posted by ExNYer

First off , it is not low. 180k a year plus perks is not low pay. Second I provide you a link showing that the Generals and Admiral ranks are bloated according to our own Sec of Defense. We have to pay them more so they will retire!

My problem is that we criticize all other forms of government wasteful spending but seem to exempt the Defense Department.

You do not hear of Generals or Admirals getting killed in combat, yet they are the one's making 250k a year in retirement pay? Sounds like Egypt to me!


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...taxpayers.html

limit the growth of the military budget. The measures include closing a command center, cutting down on the use of contractors, and reducing the number of generals and admirals by 50 over the next two years.

Why do we have so many generals? When the secretary of defense wants military brass to take a new position seriously, or he wants to give added leverage to an existing position, he makes it into a general-level job. That way, the appointee won't have to worry about being bossed around by superiors when conflicts arise. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld used this trick a lot. More than 100 general- and admiral-level positions have been created since the Sept. 11 attacks