Well done Mitt, you took it to him last night...

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/20#post_3495444
You haven't seen what LC's and Full Bird's make these days. We don't have a draft. No one forced them to join. They knew exactly what they were getting into unless they were oblivious to the fact we've been in a "war" for the last 10+ years. No, they dangled $40 grand in front of their face, and they figured it was worth the 8 year risk to take it. What I don't get is why you have all these Iraq and Afghan veterans coming home and saying they no longer have jobs, or can't find work. When did the military start "laying off" soldiers as soon as they get back from a tour? OK, you had to endure a year or more in Hell, but if you've done that, why aren't you staying in to advance your career, maybe go to Officer's Training, get your 20 in and enjoy the perks that come with retirement?
GI's aren't LC's or Full Bird. Entry level pay is nothing, like 1400.00 a month in salary. If you have a degree you can start at 2200.00 and with officers training a LT at 2700 a month. The army has been pushing people out for a while now. As their enlistments expire they are making it harder to re up.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495451
GI's aren't LC's or Full Bird. Entry level pay is nothing, like 1400.00 a month in salary. If you have a degree you can start at 2200.00 and with officers training a LT at 2700 a month. The army has been pushing people out for a while now. As their enlistments expire they are making it harder to re up.
I don't see that in the Air Force. 90% of the military personnel where I work have been in at least 10 years, and the officer's more than 15. None that I know have any plans to leave anytime in the near future. If you have 15 in, it would be stupid to quit/retire when 20 is in your reach. Colonel's with over 14 years make over $7,700/month, and get hazard duty pay if they're deployed overseas.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495467
I don't see that in the Air Force. 90% of the military personnel where I work have been in at least 10 years, and the officer's more than 15. None that I know have any plans to leave anytime in the near future. If you have 15 in, it would be stupid to quit/retire when 20 is in your reach. Colonel's with over 14 years make over $7,700/month, and get hazard duty pay if they're deployed overseas.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp
Well yeah but again they aren't waving 40 grand in front of some wide eyed kid to get them to join. Once you are in 10 it's REALLY stooooooooopid to get out.

 

[darthtang aw]

I don't see that in the Air Force.  90% of the military personnel where I work have been in at least 10 years, and the officer's more than 15.  None that I know have any plans to leave anytime in the near future.  If you have 15 in, it would be stupid to quit/retire when 20 is in your reach. Colonel's with over 14 years make over $7,700/month, and get hazard duty pay if they're deployed overseas.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp
You are referencing about 3-5% of the military at around that pay scale, depending upon which Branch you research. Raising the cost of Tri Care on all would be akin to everyone in the country receiving a tax increase because of the top 5%.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495485
You are referencing about 3-5% of the military at around that pay scale, depending upon which Branch you research. Raising the cost of Tri Care on all would be akin to everyone in the country receiving a tax increase because of the top 5%.
How many millions, or billions would you save by forcing the individuals at this pay scale to pay for their own insurance, instead of allowing the taxpayers to foot the bill? I have no problems protecting the enlisted who make the $25K - $35K a year. But why should some officer that's making $60K - $110K a year get the same benefits, when they can well afford to pay for insurance themselves? You can't equate this to the private sector because there's not a company in this country that could provide its employees healthcare coverage for $450 - $550 per year. You have some person who joined the Air Force at 21, made Captain, stayed in the 20, and "retires" at 41. Based on the chart, he'll pull in around $3500/month in retirement pay, and be afforded healthcare for around $500/year for the rest of his life. You honestly think this guy is going to sit around on the front porch in a rocking chair bringing that "piddly" amount in every month? Of course not. That's his play money, and he goes right back to the job he left behind as a contractor, making almost the same $6500 - $7000/month he was making while serving, without the risks of getting deployed in time of war. Now multiply this scenario by a couple hundred thousand or more and tell me again what's fair.

 

[darthtang aw]

How many millions, or billions would you save by forcing the individuals at this pay scale to pay for their own insurance, instead of allowing the taxpayers to foot the bill?  I have no problems protecting the enlisted who make the $25K - $35K a year.  But why should some officer that's making $60K - $110K a year get the same benefits, when they can well afford to pay for insurance themselves?  You can't equate this to the private sector because there's not a company in this country that could provide its employees healthcare coverage for $450 - $550 per year.  You have some person who joined the Air Force at 21, made Captain, stayed in the 20, and "retires" at 41.  Based on the chart, he'll pull in around $3500/month in retirement pay, and be afforded healthcare for around $500/year for the rest of his life.  You honestly think this guy is going to sit around on the front porch in a rocking chair bringing that "piddly" amount in every month?  Of course not.  That's his play money, and he goes right back to the job he left behind as a contractor, making almost the same $6500 - $7000/month he was making while serving, without the risks of getting deployed in time of war.  Now multiply this scenario by a couple hundred thousand or more and tell me again what's fair.
1. I grow tired of the term "fair". LIFE ISN'T FAIR.
2. Like I said, do away with Obamacare and anyone that needs health insurance can sign up. We have a safety net in place...God forbid though, those people actually earn thier cheaper benefits. You act as if those officers are giving the cushy job from the beginning. They never were told they had to move? They never had to uproot thier family at a moments notice. Thier families never had to adjust? You are equating a few (in the air force no less) to the majority of officers.
You have this issue with those earning a significant amount of money and getting ahead.Even if they already .......................you know,never mind. It isn't worth my time. I was raised on military bases...I know what I saw,I know what I feel. Those that volunteer earn what they get................

 

[reefraff]

Capitalism exploits the basic human trait of greed. Provide the proper incentive and people will strive to move up in most cases. You get into this fair nonsense and it falls victim to greed coupled by another human trait, sloth. Thats why we have been so much more successful than socialist countries. People who have worked long and hard to get to the upper stages of their career deserve better pay and benefits, they earned it.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495601
1. I grow tired of the term "fair". LIFE ISN'T FAIR.
2. Like I said, do away with Obamacare and anyone that needs health insurance can sign up. We have a safety net in place...God forbid though, those people actually earn thier cheaper benefits. You act as if those officers are giving the cushy job from the beginning. They never were told they had to move? They never had to uproot thier family at a moments notice. Thier families never had to adjust? You are equating a few (in the air force no less) to the majority of officers.
You have this issue with those earning a significant amount of money and getting ahead.Even if they already .......................you know,never mind. It isn't worth my time. I was raised on military bases...I know what I saw,I know what I feel. Those that volunteer earn what they get................
I've worked on military bases for more than 30 years. I've seen all the scenarios you can think of. It has nothing to do with "life being fair". This isn't some large corporation that's run by a Board and paid for by investors. This is a "corporation" that's paid for by American taxpayers. There's corruption in any large organization, especially one the size of our various military branches. But when abuses occur in this "company", you want to slough it off by using patriotism as the crutch and excuse.
Oh cry me a river. Again, IT'S A JOB. They knew going into it "extensive travel involved". If they didn't want to uproot their families and move on a moments notice, work for a local company where there is no travel. I can give you a multitude of examples where people move for their companies. My neighbor is having to move to London for his company. His family doesn't want to go, but that's where the job is. I travel anywhere between 25% - 50% of the year depending on the needs. You think my family is thrilled about that? But I don't get a lifetime pension and healthcare that costs little or nothing for the rest of my life for doing it. When's the last time you heard of companies providing pensions for their employees? Most don't even contribute to 401K's or provide stock incentives. So those who "volunteer" by joining the military are fully aware of the risks, and they know what the rewards are if they stick it out. No other company in the world provides the retirement incentives that are given to military personnel. Less than 50% of active duty personnel have had to do a tour in a high risk, hazard duty, combat environment. That's why the one's that do earn a hazard pay for that work. It's an interesting way to earn a bonus, but that's essentially what it is.
"Do away with Obamacare and anyone can sign up"? Where do you get that? That's why ACA was created. Because there's over 50 million people who can't "sign up" because it's economically impossible for them to do so. You honestly think some guy with a wife and two kids making $35,000/year could afford the average $400 - $600 per month premiums to purchase health insurance? It's simple math. More outgoing than incoming. I'll use your logic. Get rid of TRICARE and let those in the military, civil service, Federal workers, and elected officials "sign up and pay" like these other individuals you think can easily afford healthcare.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495602
Capitalism exploits the basic human trait of greed. Provide the proper incentive and people will strive to move up in most cases. You get into this fair nonsense and it falls victim to greed coupled by another human trait, sloth. Thats why we have been so much more successful than socialist countries. People who have worked long and hard to get to the upper stages of their career deserve better pay and benefits, they earned it.
You're absolutely correct. But there's a disparity in rewards between those who work 20 years in the military, and those that work in the private sector. If any private company had to pay pensions and retirement benefits to their employees equal to what those in the military get paid, 80% of all medium to large organizations would be out of business today. You have a multitude of jobs that have the same risk, if not more, than someone serving in the military. But they don't reap the same rewards. The military can afford such lavish perks because they have an unlimited bank account in the form of American taxes. Congress won't cut military budgets or perks because too many people just see the sacrifices made of the less than 50% of those "employees" who are deployed into combat situatiions. The other half get the same rewards for doing less risky jobs.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495616
You're absolutely correct. But there's a disparity in rewards between those who work 20 years in the military, and those that work in the private sector. If any private company had to pay pensions and retirement benefits to their employees equal to what those in the military get paid, 80% of all medium to large organizations would be out of business today. You have a multitude of jobs that have the same risk, if not more, than someone serving in the military. But they don't reap the same rewards. The military can afford such lavish perks because they have an unlimited bank account in the form of American taxes. Congress won't cut military budgets or perks because too many people just see the sacrifices made of the less than 50% of those "employees" who are deployed into combat situatiions. The other half get the same rewards for doing less risky jobs.
How many of those private sector jobs take away your freedoms to the level military service does? There are a lot of downsides to military life. I ain't saying some of the benefits shouldn't be trimmed but that could be said of every level of government and we should start with ending the ability to double dip pensions.

 

[acrylic51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495616
You're absolutely correct. But there's a disparity in rewards between those who work 20 years in the military, and those that work in the private sector. If any private company had to pay pensions and retirement benefits to their employees equal to what those in the military get paid, 80% of all medium to large organizations would be out of business today. You have a multitude of jobs that have the same risk, if not more, than someone serving in the military. But they don't reap the same rewards. The military can afford such lavish perks because they have an unlimited bank account in the form of American taxes. Congress won't cut military budgets or perks because too many people just see the sacrifices made of the less than 50% of those "employees" who are deployed into combat situatiions. The other half get the same rewards for doing less risky jobs.
Disagree with your comment about military.....Unless you've been there you have no real clue as to what military life is truly about....You have to remember it's equally hard on family members not just the member serving...Also remember these folks serving our country are on call; duty 24/7 365 days a year.....Not even a close comparison to most private sector jobs....And to even reference or compare any military member regardless of what their position or capacity is compared to some of the "big dopes" that sit at the helm of some of these big corps or agencies, and they are more entitled......Doubt it.... Did you serve Bionicarm....

 

[acrylic51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495615
I've worked on military bases for more than 30 years. I've seen all the scenarios you can think of. It has nothing to do with "life being fair". This isn't some large corporation that's run by a Board and paid for by investors. This is a "corporation" that's paid for by American taxpayers. There's corruption in any large organization, especially one the size of our various military branches. But when abuses occur in this "company", you want to slough it off by using patriotism as the crutch and excuse.
Oh cry me a river. Again, IT'S A JOB. They knew going into it "extensive travel involved". If they didn't want to uproot their families and move on a moments notice, work for a local company where there is no travel. I can give you a multitude of examples where people move for their companies. My neighbor is having to move to London for his company. His family doesn't want to go, but that's where the job is. I travel anywhere between 25% - 50% of the year depending on the needs. You think my family is thrilled about that? But I don't get a lifetime pension and healthcare that costs little or nothing for the rest of my life for doing it. When's the last time you heard of companies providing pensions for their employees? Most don't even contribute to 401K's or provide stock incentives. So those who "volunteer" by joining the military are fully aware of the risks, and they know what the rewards are if they stick it out. No other company in the world provides the retirement incentives that are given to military personnel. Less than 50% of active duty personnel have had to do a tour in a high risk, hazard duty, combat environment. That's why the one's that do earn a hazard pay for that work. It's an interesting way to earn a bonus, but that's essentially what it is.
"Do away with Obamacare and anyone can sign up"? Where do you get that? That's why ACA was created. Because there's over 50 million people who can't "sign up" because it's economically impossible for them to do so. You honestly think some guy with a wife and two kids making $35,000/year could afford the average $400 - $600 per month premiums to purchase health insurance? It's simple math. More outgoing than incoming. I'll use your logic. Get rid of TRICARE and let those in the military, civil service, Federal workers, and elected officials "sign up and pay" like these other individuals you think can easily afford healthcare.
I guess that answered my previous question.....You've worked as a contractor to a capacity....But you've never lived the life.....2 different worlds my friend.....

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495649
Disagree with your comment about military.....Unless you've been there you have no real clue as to what military life is truly about....You have to remember it's equally hard on family members not just the member serving...Also remember these folks serving our country are on call; duty 24/7 365 days a year.....Not even a close comparison to most private sector jobs....And to even reference or compare any military member regardless of what their position or capacity is compared to some of the "big dopes" that sit at the helm of some of these big corps or agencies, and they are more entitled......Doubt it.... Did you serve Bionicarm....
Working in that environment, I've heard every story, I've seen every situation. I've worked side-by-side with the E1 "grunt" that performed every menial task known to man, to a Major General who was one of the most compassionate men I've known (and also had an 8 handicap). Have I lived it? My business has afforded me the opportunity to work with military personnel in regions of this world that a majority of those enlisted have never seen. So to say "I've never lived it" is furthest from the truth.
I'm well aware of the tensions and "inconveniences" that military families endure when their loved one's are deployed overseas for as long as a year and a half at a time. I've spent many a day assisting friend's wife's, brother's, mother's, and kid's during those times. I've actually "hooked up" families for special occassions while they were overseas. There was a Captain I know who was stationed in Iraq, and I had connections to allow a temporary video stream so that he could watch his daughter be born. Again, these individuals knew the job descriptions. They know it's a 24/7/365 job. They know it involves extensive time away from their families. No one forced any of them to accept the position. The main difference is that once they sign above the dotted line, they're committed to working for that "company" for a minimum of 8 years. After that, they're more than welcome to pursue other job opportunities.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495660
Working in that environment, I've heard every story, I've seen every situation. I've worked side-by-side with the E1 "grunt" that performed every menial task known to man, to a Major General who was one of the most compassionate men I've known (and also had an 8 handicap). Have I lived it? My business has afforded me the opportunity to work with military personnel in regions of this world that a majority of those enlisted have never seen. So to say "I've never lived it" is furthest from the truth.
I'm well aware of the tensions and "inconveniences" that military families endure when their loved one's are deployed overseas for as long as a year and a half at a time. I've spent many a day assisting friend's wife's, brother's, mother's, and kid's during those times. I've actually "hooked up" families for special occassions while they were overseas. There was a Captain I know who was stationed in Iraq, and I had connections to allow a temporary video stream so that he could watch his daughter be born. Again, these individuals knew the job descriptions. They know it's a 24/7/365 job. They know it involves extensive time away from their families. No one forced any of them to accept the position. The main difference is that once they sign above the dotted line, they're committed to working for that "company" for a minimum of 8 years. After that, they're more than welcome to pursue other job opportunities.
I am nor aware of any condition that requires an 8 year commitment. Even coming out of the military academies only requires 4 years. Even so the whole package is why those people are willing to sign up. Working with them still doesn't really give you the same life experiences they have and I am not even talking about deployments. You are still at the military's mercy when it comes to where you will be living. That isn't such a huge issue when you are single but when you have kids it's a pretty big deal.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495712
I am nor aware of any condition that requires an 8 year commitment. Even coming out of the military academies only requires 4 years. Even so the whole package is why those people are willing to sign up. Working with them still doesn't really give you the same life experiences they have and I am not even talking about deployments. You are still at the military's mercy when it comes to where you will be living. That isn't such a huge issue when you are single but when you have kids it's a pretty big deal.
4 years active, and 2 - 4 years inactive. Again, they know what they're committing to when they sign up. I always found it kind of comical when you had these individuals join the Reserves, thinking they could get that "whole package" just by playing Weekend Warrior every month, and two weeks once per year. Then when the Iraq War got into full swing, and they were the first one's being deployed, it was "Wait! This isn't what I signed up for!" Uh, yes it was...
I understand what joining the military entails. That's one of the reasons I never joined. I didn't want someone telling me where I would live, what I would do every minute of the day, and what my best "career path" would be based on some gambit of tests. I highly doubt I would've been afforded the same opportunities and life choices I've made if I joined the service back then.

 

[dragonzim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495615
. My neighbor is having to move to London for his company. His family doesn't want to go, but that's where the job is.
The major difference here is that your friends DOES have the option to leave that job. A soldier does not.

 

[dragonzim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495616
You're absolutely correct. But there's a disparity in rewards between those who work 20 years in the military, and those that work in the private sector. If any private company had to pay pensions and retirement benefits to their employees equal to what those in the military get paid, 80% of all medium to large organizations would be out of business today. You have a multitude of jobs that have the same risk, if not more, than someone serving in the military. But they don't reap the same rewards. The military can afford such lavish perks because they have an unlimited bank account in the form of American taxes. Congress won't cut military budgets or perks because too many people just see the sacrifices made of the less than 50% of those "employees" who are deployed into combat situatiions. The other half get the same rewards for doing less risky jobs.
now you're just sounding petty and jealous. You said yourself upthread that if you had known years ago the kind of work you'd end up doing you would have enlisted and most likely be of a high rank by now. Since you didnt have the foresight to do that you are now making it sound like those that did are not deserving of the benefits they receive. I'd be willing to bet that if you had signed up and were now enjoying those same benefits that you wouldnt be on this board bitching about them!

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495732
now you're just sounding petty and jealous. You said yourself upthread that if you had known years ago the kind of work you'd end up doing you would have enlisted and most likely be of a high rank by now. Since you didnt have the foresight to do that you are now making it sound like those that did are not deserving of the benefits they receive. I'd be willing to bet that if you had signed up and were now enjoying those same benefits that you wouldnt be on this board bitching about them!
Of course not. Why would anyone who reaps those kind of perks have a reason to complain about them? I would just imagine that I'd be living the good life if I'd join back then. Not sure what the incentive is for those that don't try to get into Officer's Training. Granted I know some Master Sergeants that are very content with their career paths, and they wouldn't change them if they could.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495731
The major difference here is that your friends DOES have the option to leave that job. A soldier does not.
Sure they do. Four years is nothing these days. If they get on the right career path, they can spend those years doing nothing but getting a college or technical education all on the taxpayer's dime. However, I imagine there's further commitments if you take that track. Military life should be a family decision. Why a woman who marries someone in the military wouldn't understand what the sacrifices will be going in obviously doesn't do her research. Same thing if he/she marries someone whose been in for a while. At times of war like we're at today, sacrifices are more prevelent. During the 80's, most servicemen I knew didn't travel all that much. If they did, it consisted of at least one overseas tour, which back then meant somewhere in Europe, Hawaii, Japan, or the Phillipines. I was working at Brooks AFB and Kelly AFB in the 80's and 90's, and 90% of the servicemen I worked with were there the entire time. There were a couple of Major's and Captain's that had been stationed at Brooks for more than 12 years, and the only reason they ended up leaving was to finish their 20 after BRAC shut that base down.

 

[darthtang aw]

Ok, lets compare costs.
Military heathcare costs 50 billion a year.
Medicaid costs 275 billion.
Military heathcare costs cover an estimated 33 million people.
Medicaid costs cover an estimated 64 million people.
One group of people are covered because they served their country.
One group of people are covered because they are poor.
Now looking at those numbers.....which ones need the cuts?
Also, Obama had entered a proposal to congress earlier this year to raise tricare costs to military from 480 a year to 2500 a year. I believe congress shot it down, but i can not find any news on where thebill is currently.