- Guest083013
- 07-27-2011, 08:44 PM
- Rodram
- 07-27-2011, 09:45 PM
http://www.military.com/news/article...=1186032320397 Originally Posted by dennisrnWhy did you run over here dennisrn?!? I mean, don't you love Corporate America?!? Well you can have exactly what they give their employees so whatcha' bitchin about?
"The plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board."-
http://www.military.com/news/article...=airforce-a.nl
"This plan would allow DoD to save money by making contributions to a civilian style 401(k) retirement plan."-
Read more: http://militaryadvantage.military.co...#ixzz1TMZ704eP
MilitaryAdvantage.Military.com
Didn't you vote for this dennisrn and this is what you argue for? Small Government right? Isn't the military government?
"The Defense Department appropriations bill includes $530 in base Pentagon spending, which is $8 billion less than President Obama's request for fiscal year 2012. There's an additional $118.6 billion for overseas contingency operations -- a $39 billion drop, reflecting the expected drawdown in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Republicans announced in May that they were going to try to cut $30 billion from federal agencies' operating budgets in order to deal with the growing deficit.
While the Pentagon isn't getting all the money the Obama administration would like it to receive, it's still in a significantly stronger position than many other government agencies. If the Pentagon gets its full $17 billion increase, that means that domestic agencies have to absorb $47 billion in cuts."
Thank yourself and your party for this.
- oshins
- 07-28-2011, 10:23 AM
Dennis, the thing is that every area of government spending that congress talk about cutting has a 'group' that opposes the cuts. Someone, or in the case of the asinine game of chicken Congress is playing now, lots of groups are going to be pissed.
The question then becomes who to piss off. Each congressman favors cuts that don't affect his/her district. Doing otherwise would greatly reduce their chance of re-election. And we all know that is the first priority of all of our elected officials.
So as I see it, we need to do a few things;
First, and I agree with Rr here... a little, revoke bush tax cuts. Or, simplifying the tax code so that everyone, including corporations actually pays. I am no economist, but I don't see why an 11% flat tax wouldn't work. I know why people oppose it, people (and corporations) are self serving, its in our nature. All the economists I have heard speak (intelligently) on the topic agree that cutting the budget will only get us part of the way. And, for the record, I would be personally, and adversely affected by this. I accept that as part of my obligation as a US citizen.
Second - reduce foreign aid, drastically.
Third - Adopt the new retirement plan with a modification that increases benefits to those currently serving. i.e. receiving a pro-rated portion of benes based on years of service...I see the new plan as a great way for people who only serve 4 or 8 years to get benefits for their service. On a tangential note - I also think we should instate a policy that requires 2 years of compulsory service after high school. If they don't graduate, then near their 18th birthday. And it's a good place to learn skills that will be useful to a dropout. After the 2 years the TSP account could then be applied to funding college or if they do not go to college, a retirement account available at 59.5. How much interest would accrue over 39.5 years? Service would not solely be military, but everyone should serve the country in some fashion to earn their citizenship.
4th - And most important, but hardest to swallow in this economy. Slash the bureaucracy, streamline the govt. Eliminate lobbying of congress except by constituents, and include a cap on spending by any lobby. Must be transparent.
5th - Turn over the welfare system to the states. Let them do with them what they will. If TX residents want to eliminate or change them, they can. If CA wants to keep them, they can... if they can be funded. People can then relocate to an area that suits their sensibilities.
6th - Term limits. Fresh blood = new ideas.
This may be oversimplified, and there is much more I would like to say, but I have more pressing needs at the moment.
The question then becomes who to piss off. Each congressman favors cuts that don't affect his/her district. Doing otherwise would greatly reduce their chance of re-election. And we all know that is the first priority of all of our elected officials.
So as I see it, we need to do a few things;
First, and I agree with Rr here... a little, revoke bush tax cuts. Or, simplifying the tax code so that everyone, including corporations actually pays. I am no economist, but I don't see why an 11% flat tax wouldn't work. I know why people oppose it, people (and corporations) are self serving, its in our nature. All the economists I have heard speak (intelligently) on the topic agree that cutting the budget will only get us part of the way. And, for the record, I would be personally, and adversely affected by this. I accept that as part of my obligation as a US citizen.
Second - reduce foreign aid, drastically.
Third - Adopt the new retirement plan with a modification that increases benefits to those currently serving. i.e. receiving a pro-rated portion of benes based on years of service...I see the new plan as a great way for people who only serve 4 or 8 years to get benefits for their service. On a tangential note - I also think we should instate a policy that requires 2 years of compulsory service after high school. If they don't graduate, then near their 18th birthday. And it's a good place to learn skills that will be useful to a dropout. After the 2 years the TSP account could then be applied to funding college or if they do not go to college, a retirement account available at 59.5. How much interest would accrue over 39.5 years? Service would not solely be military, but everyone should serve the country in some fashion to earn their citizenship.
4th - And most important, but hardest to swallow in this economy. Slash the bureaucracy, streamline the govt. Eliminate lobbying of congress except by constituents, and include a cap on spending by any lobby. Must be transparent.
5th - Turn over the welfare system to the states. Let them do with them what they will. If TX residents want to eliminate or change them, they can. If CA wants to keep them, they can... if they can be funded. People can then relocate to an area that suits their sensibilities.
6th - Term limits. Fresh blood = new ideas.
This may be oversimplified, and there is much more I would like to say, but I have more pressing needs at the moment.
- satexasguy
- 07-28-2011, 04:59 PM
good points Oshins. I especially agree with point 4. I think it should be illegal for any politician to benefit from a lobbyist. Either from gifts, trips, money, etc.
Item 5 is a good idea as well.
I would add one more thing to item 3. This is wishful thinking, but I suggest that any politician who is against supporting the military and that wants to make major budget cuts to the military shoud have the names of their children (18 or older) placed into a bin and picked out like a lottery drawing. The name that is chosen should then be placed in a combat unit right in the thick of battle. I bet this will change the politicians attitude toward cutting spending on military. Afterall, I'm sure that politician will want the best technology protecting their child from the dangers of war.
Rodram, you have probably never served in any branch of the military. If so, it was probably in a REMF position far from any danger. I served in the army (combat units) and when I got out and worked for big corporations, I was appaled at the utter lack of respect most large corporations have for the military. They may act like they support the military, but they actually have no respect for them. Name one corporation that places the majority of it's members in potential life threatening situations and are paid relatively little to do so. Most members of the military are severely underpaid compared to civilian and other government employees. The sacrifices they make are more than deserving of a retirement plan that exists today. My ex-father in law was an Executive VP at a very large pharma company. He was very patriotic but I could not say the same for many of his fellow executives. One of his wealthy friends even had that audacity to say that he supported the Gulf War (1st one) but that his son and nephews should not volunteer to serve because they came from better stock. If congress wants to pass such a BS retirement plan, then I say they should have to do the same. They should not get the retirement benefits they get today.
Item 5 is a good idea as well.
I would add one more thing to item 3. This is wishful thinking, but I suggest that any politician who is against supporting the military and that wants to make major budget cuts to the military shoud have the names of their children (18 or older) placed into a bin and picked out like a lottery drawing. The name that is chosen should then be placed in a combat unit right in the thick of battle. I bet this will change the politicians attitude toward cutting spending on military. Afterall, I'm sure that politician will want the best technology protecting their child from the dangers of war.
Rodram, you have probably never served in any branch of the military. If so, it was probably in a REMF position far from any danger. I served in the army (combat units) and when I got out and worked for big corporations, I was appaled at the utter lack of respect most large corporations have for the military. They may act like they support the military, but they actually have no respect for them. Name one corporation that places the majority of it's members in potential life threatening situations and are paid relatively little to do so. Most members of the military are severely underpaid compared to civilian and other government employees. The sacrifices they make are more than deserving of a retirement plan that exists today. My ex-father in law was an Executive VP at a very large pharma company. He was very patriotic but I could not say the same for many of his fellow executives. One of his wealthy friends even had that audacity to say that he supported the Gulf War (1st one) but that his son and nephews should not volunteer to serve because they came from better stock. If congress wants to pass such a BS retirement plan, then I say they should have to do the same. They should not get the retirement benefits they get today.
- oshins
- 07-28-2011, 05:19 PM
satexasguy - Congress gets the same retirement benefit plan as every other civil servant. It's similar to a 401k.
It's not the crazyness you hear about in email - 'they serve one term an collect their pay forever'. That is a complete fallacy.
It's not the crazyness you hear about in email - 'they serve one term an collect their pay forever'. That is a complete fallacy.