PDA

View Full Version : Chief Cody spoke to a group of enlisted folks at MacDill today



imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
02-20-2013, 09:40 PM
Did anyone here happen to attend? I caught some tidbits second hand, but I was hoping someone else might be able to confirm some of the info that was passed along to me. Among other things, I was told:


- Like so many others, he feels our rating system could be flawed. Like many before him, he preached accurate ratings (i.e. don't hand out 5s like candy). The idea of marking one down for not completing PME commensurate with their rank was mentioned (i.e. MSgt without course 14 accomplished). Now what didn't get relayed to me is his thoughts about EPRs and the points they earn you, which brings me to the next point of interest.

- I heard he feels the scoring for promotions might need to be refined as well. Apparently he wonders why a SrA that makes SSgt at 6 years should get more points to help him/her make SSgt than a SrA making SSgt at 4 years. Now what wasn't relayed to me is the fact that there had been a trend of fewer people testing for years now, yet a higher rate of people being promoted, so I'm not sure that the "too many Chiefs and not enough Indians" epidemic is a concern, despite fiscal uncertainties. My point, is that it's easier to lead if there's actually someone to lead & if money is such a concern, perhaps we should reconsider how quickly some of these stripes are being handed out?

- I heard about another PT change on the horizon. The Cliff's Notes version sounded like there's a concern that the PT test hasn't done enough to get rid of or "reform" some folks that may not represent the image the Air Force would like to portray. There was talk about bringing back measurements of the neck as well. Unfortunately, this is all I was told on the subject.

- Naturally, money came up as well. Apparently there's talk of retirements becoming 401Ks in the future. I was told that he clarified it shouldn't happen to anyone wearing a uniform right now, or those that are already retired, but those thinking of joining down the road may not receive the same benefits. Speaking of benefits, I heard he mentioned that we'll all have to chip in more to TriCare, because there's no way we can continue to receive what we do now without paying more. Interestingly enough, it also sounded like he spoke about sequestration as if it was going to happen, and we can count on readiness being effected by mid May (I've heard the same at a HQ).



Now despite the fact that it will probably seem like b.s., I'm honestly not trying to start any rumors here. What I am hoping for is that someone here has heard him speak recently, and perhaps they can verify some of this and maybe even elaborate. If not, nevermind. :)

JD2780
02-20-2013, 09:50 PM
The world is actually flat.

Jamethon
02-20-2013, 10:50 PM
Since I joined the Air Force, we have been talking about how ratings are flawed. How we need to fix it ourselves. Do they not have enough pride to realize that it won't get fixed by ourselves and we need to dump our current system?

Gen Welsh came to my base and said that they can keep making new forms, but the change has to come from us. That is a given. It has been proven, though, that the mindset of 5's unless they are shitty is the way of the Air Force. That will just keep getting passed down to the next generation.

So when will the top dogs of the Air Force STOP putting EPRs on the back burner? The only comments they ever have are "we need to fix them" "it's up to you to fix them." Dump this 5 rating. Get rid of the points/promotion impact. Why don't we just go with the feedback form so the troop knows EXACTLY how they are doing without any fluff or career impact. We should use paperwork if someone wants to have their "career impacted."

Robert F. Dorr
02-20-2013, 10:52 PM
"he clarified it shouldn't happen to anyone wearing a uniform right now..."

Hard to know your version of his intent here since "shouldn't" has at least two very different meanings.

Simple truth is he doesn't know and doesn't have any role in deciding.

SomeRandomGuy
02-20-2013, 11:18 PM
"he clarified it shouldn't happen to anyone wearing a uniform right now..."

Hard to know your version of his intent here since "shouldn't" has at least two very different meanings.

Simple truth is he doesn't know and doesn't have any role in deciding.

I actually like the idea of military retirement moving to a 401K style plan. Think about all of the possible benefits:

1. Gives people an option to leave the military at any point. Just look at the disgruntled people on here who have 12 years in but have to stay for 8 more years if they want anything in the way of retirement compensation for their time.

2. People already view the military as a job. With a 401K that is now portable we can acquire some talented people that are only interested in serving 1 or 2 enlistments for altruistic reasons.

3. The 401K money would be dumped into the stock market thus making capital avaliable to corporations and also creating jobs for stock traders and financial analysts.


Now when I say that I support the 401K system I mean that it should be phased in. The plan I support is the most commonly talk about one where people over 18 years are unaffected, people at 16 years get a small portion of retirement plus a proportional 401K, people at 12 get a slight retiremnt and more 401K match, and continue this all the way down to new recruits only recieveing a 401K and no pension. The only caveat I would add is possibly making the military 401K tax exempt. Other than that I see plenty of beefits to moving to this system.

FLAPS
02-21-2013, 12:33 AM
I actually like the idea of military retirement moving to a 401K style plan. Think about all of the possible benefits:

1. Gives people an option to leave the military at any point. Just look at the disgruntled people on here who have 12 years in but have to stay for 8 more years if they want anything in the way of retirement compensation for their time.

2. People already view the military as a job. With a 401K that is now portable we can acquire some talented people that are only interested in serving 1 or 2 enlistments for altruistic reasons.

3. The 401K money would be dumped into the stock market thus making capital avaliable to corporations and also creating jobs for stock traders and financial analysts.


Now when I say that I support the 401K system I mean that it should be phased in. The plan I support is the most commonly talk about one where people over 18 years are unaffected, people at 16 years get a small portion of retirement plus a proportional 401K, people at 12 get a slight retiremnt and more 401K match, and continue this all the way down to new recruits only recieveing a 401K and no pension. The only caveat I would add is possibly making the military 401K tax exempt. Other than that I see plenty of beefits to moving to this system.

My only issue with a new system like this is with people retiring after 20+ years from a non-marketable career, like artillery. These people I assume will have to start a brand new career at the entry level...at close to 40 years of age or older. At least the traditional pension will relieve some of the stress of earning a lower salary when most of their civilian counterparts are enjoying their peak earning years.

VFFTSGT
02-21-2013, 12:37 AM
Chief Roy talked a good game at first too...

Talk is cheap...

Airborne
02-21-2013, 02:10 AM
Yeh, I think a 401k would be a marvelous idea. You are damned near left with nothing after years of service. The GI bill is good but its sort of like getting a gift certificate to the Olive Garden when actually wanted one for Netflix. You get out what you put in.

imported_Renazance
02-21-2013, 07:19 AM
Since I joined the Air Force, we have been talking about how ratings are flawed. How we need to fix it ourselves. Do they not have enough pride to realize that it won't get fixed by ourselves and we need to dump our current system?

Gen Welsh came to my base and said that they can keep making new forms, but the change has to come from us. That is a given. It has been proven, though, that the mindset of 5's unless they are shitty is the way of the Air Force. That will just keep getting passed down to the next generation.

So when will the top dogs of the Air Force STOP putting EPRs on the back burner? The only comments they ever have are "we need to fix them" "it's up to you to fix them." Dump this 5 rating. Get rid of the points/promotion impact. Why don't we just go with the feedback form so the troop knows EXACTLY how they are doing without any fluff or career impact. We should use paperwork if someone wants to have their "career impacted."

NEGATIVE Gen Welsh and Chief Cody, the change needs to come from the top! You guys need to change the culture of viewing anything less than a 5 as subpar and eliminate the stigma of it. The AF isn't gonna listen to us lowly NCOs and CGOs who want to pioneer these changes, but they will take your words as gospel. Start by eliminating the "must have 5s on last 3 EPRs" on job postings and special duty requirements. Start by addressing your wing, group, squadron commanders and SELs to tell them that supervisors shouldn't have to justify a 3 or 4 rating and that they should thoroughly scrutinize all 5s that come across their desk.

Chief Cody, I sure hope you don't follow in your predecessor's and give us nothing but lip service. We've had enough of that. Don't make statements, make moves!

Nickymaz
02-21-2013, 10:35 AM
NEGATIVE Gen Welsh and Chief Cody, the change needs to come from the top! You guys need to change the culture of viewing anything less than a 5 as subpar and eliminate the stigma of it. The AF isn't gonna listen to us lowly NCOs and CGOs who want to pioneer these changes, but they will take your words as gospel. Start by eliminating the "must have 5s on last 3 EPRs" on job postings and special duty requirements. Start by addressing your wing, group, squadron commanders and SELs to tell them that supervisors shouldn't have to justify a 3 or 4 rating and that they should thoroughly scrutinize all 5s that come across their desk.

Chief Cody, I sure hope you don't follow in your predecessor's and give us nothing but lip service. We've had enough of that. Don't make statements, make moves!

Exactly, not until we let's people with 4's come work with him on the Air Staff will this change. After all, a 4 is an above average Airman.

CrustySMSgt
02-21-2013, 10:47 AM
Did anyone here happen to attend? I caught some tidbits second hand, but I was hoping someone else might be able to confirm some of the info that was passed along to me. Among other things, I was told:

- Like so many others, he feels our rating system could be flawed. Like many before him, he preached accurate ratings (i.e. don't hand out 5s like candy). The idea of marking one down for not completing PME commensurate with their rank was mentioned (i.e. MSgt without course 14 accomplished). Now what didn't get relayed to me is his thoughts about EPRs and the points they earn you, which brings me to the next point of interest.

- I heard he feels the scoring for promotions might need to be refined as well. Apparently he wonders why a SrA that makes SSgt at 6 years should get more points to help him/her make SSgt than a SrA making SSgt at 4 years. Now what wasn't relayed to me is the fact that there had been a trend of fewer people testing for years now, yet a higher rate of people being promoted, so I'm not sure that the "too many Chiefs and not enough Indians" epidemic is a concern, despite fiscal uncertainties. My point, is that it's easier to lead if there's actually someone to lead & if money is such a concern, perhaps we should reconsider how quickly some of these stripes are being handed out?

- I heard about another PT change on the horizon. The Cliff's Notes version sounded like there's a concern that the PT test hasn't done enough to get rid of or "reform" some folks that may not represent the image the Air Force would like to portray. There was talk about bringing back measurements of the neck as well. Unfortunately, this is all I was told on the subject.

- Naturally, money came up as well. Apparently there's talk of retirements becoming 401Ks in the future. I was told that he clarified it shouldn't happen to anyone wearing a uniform right now, or those that are already retired, but those thinking of joining down the road may not receive the same benefits. Speaking of benefits, I heard he mentioned that we'll all have to chip in more to TriCare, because there's no way we can continue to receive what we do now without paying more. Interestingly enough, it also sounded like he spoke about sequestration as if it was going to happen, and we can count on readiness being effected by mid May (I've heard the same at a HQ).

Now despite the fact that it will probably seem like b.s., I'm honestly not trying to start any rumors here. What I am hoping for is that someone here has heard him speak recently, and perhaps they can verify some of this and maybe even elaborate. If not, nevermind. :)

I don't think we need to go so far as having a checklist that spits a rating out at the end, but it would go a long way to normalizing ratings if there were some items that drove consequences. Not getting senior rater without CCAF/PME was a good start, but like PT, it still isn't driving true change. So how about taking away Sr rater on your first TIG eligible EPR. Next EPR and it still isn't done, it can't be a 5. Next one, can't be a 4. Would send a very clear message on the importance of getting these done, as well as socializing the fact that not everyone is a 5. Hate to make it like PT, where one "standard" becomes more important that others, but that is one way we can begin to push ratings down and identify who's really earning 5. Just my random thought of the day.

Not sure what you're saying about SrA/SSgts? Why WOULDN'T you give credit for experience?!? I've heard discussion (not "officially") of promoting people based on their raw scores instead of TIG and if the 4 year SrA scored higher than the 6 year on, promoting them first, but nothing at all about getting rid of TIG/TIS points. The top 2 grades are limited to 2% & 1%, so there is no issue with pushing too many to those grades (and that number gets smaller as the force draws down); below that, there are only so many billets, so higher promotion rates just indicate more folks have vacated current billets in that grade. We're not going to end up with too many MSgts, TSgts...

Haven't heard anything about neck measurements or fatties being targeted. Here, Gen Welsh said he'd take ONE look at PT in his tenure and leave it alone. He did mention that, unlike Chief Cody, HE had to watch his waist, so he's aware of how much impact that element carries, so I wouldn't think he'd choose to focus more attention on that area.

The military retirement system HAS to change! Life expectancy gets longer every year. There is no way to sustain paying people the current levels of retirement pay for 60+ years. That'll be a tough nut to crack, as there has to be SOME sort of significant incentive to stay to/past 20.


Yeh, I think a 401k would be a marvelous idea. You are damned near left with nothing after years of service. The GI bill is good but its sort of like getting a gift certificate to the Olive Garden when actually wanted one for Netflix. You get out what you put in.

With the lean financial times coming, I can't see them continuing the "new" GI bill; we'll be lucky to keep the benefits as-is for AD folks, but I see the transferability going away. Another expensive program; by restricting it to AD, they're confident that a fair number of folks won't use it and it'll be money they don't have to spend. Opening it up to families significantly reduces that margin.


NEGATIVE Gen Welsh and Chief Cody, the change needs to come from the top! You guys need to change the culture of viewing anything less than a 5 as subpar and eliminate the stigma of it. The AF isn't gonna listen to us lowly NCOs and CGOs who want to pioneer these changes, but they will take your words as gospel. Start by eliminating the "must have 5s on last 3 EPRs" on job postings and special duty requirements. Start by addressing your wing, group, squadron commanders and SELs to tell them that supervisors shouldn't have to justify a 3 or 4 rating and that they should thoroughly scrutinize all 5s that come across their desk.

Chief Cody, I sure hope you don't follow in your predecessor's and give us nothing but lip service. We've had enough of that. Don't make statements, make moves!

I have to agree that this MUST be pushed from the top. I've seen too many battles over "markdowns" from unit leadership (mostly Os, but some Es). Back to the discussion from another thread, I love whoever came up with the idea of only having a few bullets for 3/4 EPRs and exploiting the general trend of lazy supervisors, who if they only had to write 4 bullets for a 3/4 or 20 for a 5, they'll take the easy way out! If someone's done the work to come up with 20 hard hitting bullets that will justify a 5, they'll be easy to write. If this isn't an across the board mindset-shift, it'll never work. We've got to start looking at 4/5s as MARK-UPs. Easier said than done I know, but if commanders are made to believe that this is what the CSAF expects, hopefully they'll get on board.

Must come with allowances for not everyone to be perfect and not have doors slammed in their face. Do great work and have 4s, why shouldn't you still get a job, decoration, or award?

As much as I understand it had no impact last time, I think it has to come with a revision to the EPR ratings. I know going from 9 to 5 didn't change the inclination to give everyone the top rating and we went right back to doing it. But by changing it up, it at least opens the opportunity to reset everyone's mindset and if combined with a sustained push to reward outstanding performance and not stigmatize being average or "only" above average.

Chief_KO
02-21-2013, 11:55 AM
For all those wanting the AF to "fix" the EPR system from the Pentagon, be careful what you ask for you just might get it. When the EPR replaced the APR there was "recommended guidance" regarding overall ratings. While a formal quota system was not put in place, it was recommended that only a certain percentage (I forget the number) of Airmen in a workcenter should receive the "5" rating. Well, for those of us around back then that was NOT embraced by the masses. I remember as a young TSgt, the unit I was assigned to had a policy that if you were not enrolled in or completed your PME correspondence (there was NCOA correspondence then), you would not receive a 5. My boss, a MSgt did not complete his SNCOA (C), was a hard worker, good supervisor, etc. but received a "4". Needless to say, this TSgt did his NCOA (C). For those bemoaning bullet writing, read the old APRs when complete sentences (with mandatory/recommended headings) were used. Trust me, bullets are better.

Pullinteeth
02-21-2013, 12:59 PM
"he clarified it shouldn't happen to anyone wearing a uniform right now..."

Hard to know your version of his intent here since "shouldn't" has at least two very different meanings.

Simple truth is he doesn't know and doesn't have any role in deciding.

Spot on...just like when Panneta "promised" that any changes wouldn't impact those currently serving....he can SAY whatever he wants but even the SecDef doesn't get to make the call. He can make reccommendations but it isn't his decision to make.



The top 2 grades are limited to 2% & 1%, so there is no issue with pushing too many to those grades (and that number gets smaller as the force draws down); below that, there are only so many billets, so higher promotion rates just indicate more folks have vacated current billets in that grade.

Not EXACTLY completely true....

Sergeant eNYgma
02-21-2013, 01:26 PM
Chief Roy talked a good game at first too...

Talk is cheap...

Amen to that...

imported_UncommonSense
02-21-2013, 03:59 PM
Back to the discussion from another thread, I love whoever came up with the idea of only having a few bullets for 3/4 EPRs and exploiting the general trend of lazy supervisors, who if they only had to write 4 bullets for a 3/4 or 20 for a 5, they'll take the easy way out! If someone's done the work to come up with 20 hard hitting bullets that will justify a 5, they'll be easy to write.

I mentioned that a while ago. Yay me.

Rainmaker
02-21-2013, 04:54 PM
I actually like the idea of military retirement moving to a 401K style plan. Think about all of the possible benefits:

1. Gives people an option to leave the military at any point. Just look at the disgruntled people on here who have 12 years in but have to stay for 8 more years if they want anything in the way of retirement compensation for their time.

2. People already view the military as a job. With a 401K that is now portable we can acquire some talented people that are only interested in serving 1 or 2 enlistments for altruistic reasons.

3. The 401K money would be dumped into the stock market thus making capital avaliable to corporations and also creating jobs for stock traders and financial analysts.

Now when I say that I support the 401K system I mean that it should be phased in. The plan I support is the most commonly talk about one where people over 18 years are unaffected, people at 16 years get a small portion of retirement plus a proportional 401K, people at 12 get a slight retiremnt and more 401K match, and continue this all the way down to new recruits only recieveing a 401K and no pension. The only caveat I would add is possibly making the military 401K tax exempt. Other than that I see plenty of beefits to moving to this system.

Yes, because the big Corporations and Wall street haven't already raped enough working class Americans in private industry out of their retirements. Now they need to go after the only pool of money left? Police pensions and Military retirement are bankrupting the country? Give me a fucking break. Any current Military leader that thinks this is a good idea for the military going down the road should be ashamed of themselves. The 401K system is going to collapse when all the baby boomers retire and start dumping shares on the market. Then they'll lock down the credit and come to the taxpayer with their handout demanding another taxpayer bailout or the economy will collapse.

Filterbing
02-21-2013, 06:09 PM
I think we should drop the EPR from testing, the averages are usually around 130 anyway. There should instead be negative points assessed for getting in trouble which is usually the reason behind a lower rating in the first place.

SomeRandomGuy
02-21-2013, 06:21 PM
Yes, because the big Corporations and Wall street haven't already raped enough working class Americans in private industry out of their retirements. Now they need to go after the only pool of money left? Police pensions and Military retirement are bankrupting the country? Give me a fucking break. Any current Military leader that thinks this is a good idea for the military going down the road should be ashamed of themselves. The 401K system is going to collapse when all the baby boomers retire and start dumping shares on the market. Then they'll lock down the credit and come to the taxpayer with their handout demanding another taxpayer bailout or the economy will collapse.

Exactly how much stock do you think baby boomers who are about to retire own? Any financial advisor would recommend a person diversify. They also recommend that the closer you to get to retiring the less stock you should own. At this point baby boomers are buying highly rated bonds, gold, and CDs. Your logic makes no sense on this response. Also the 401K managers would clearly be smart enough to have the money diversified as well. Just look at the rate of return on TSP. Even in a down market years it has not been bad at all.

mikezulu1
02-21-2013, 08:03 PM
For those calling for a "401k" type system, we already have that its called the TSP. TSP is the exact same as a "401k" just with a different name, in fact its the lowest costing 401k program in the country by FAR. We just dont get an employer match, most people who work for a company that has a 401k dont receive a match either. We get a pension on top of it, if you are a 20 yr MSGT and retire you get a pension that is the equivilent of having about $1.5 Million in TSP converted to an annuity. That means you would have to save about 75k a year starting your first yr of service to yr 20 to end up with that balance. And saying the 401k "system" is going to collapse? sorry but thats not even a possibility, the baby boomers are in such a wide age range and have such diverse asset allocations that they will not have any impact on the stock market. Do you think they are all going to get together and say "we should all sell every equity we own and all switch to 100%bonds that are paying a historicly low 1.8%" doubtful. Even when fully retired most people still have a percentage of their portfolio in stocks/equity mutual funds to sustain long term withdrawls.

imported_chipotleboy
02-21-2013, 08:30 PM
For those calling for a "401k" type system, we already have that its called the TSP. TSP is the exact same as a "401k" just with a different name, in fact its the lowest costing 401k program in the country by FAR. We just dont get an employer match, most people who work for a company that has a 401k dont receive a match either. We get a pension on top of it, if you are a 20 yr MSGT and retire you get a pension that is the equivilent of having about $1.5 Million in TSP converted to an annuity. That means you would have to save about 75k a year starting your first yr of service to yr 20 to end up with that balance. And saying the 401k "system" is going to collapse? sorry but thats not even a possibility, the baby boomers are in such a wide age range and have such diverse asset allocations that they will not have any impact on the stock market. Do you think they are all going to get together and say "we should all sell every equity we own and all switch to 100%bonds that are paying a historicly low 1.8%" doubtful. Even when fully retired most people still have a percentage of their portfolio in stocks/equity mutual funds to sustain long term withdrawls.

TSP is nice in being able to tax-defer income, but I wish there was a self-directed option instead of having to select one of their defined funds. My self-directed Roth is consistently outperforming TSP.

Rainmaker
02-21-2013, 09:04 PM
For those calling for a "401k" type system, we already have that its called the TSP. TSP is the exact same as a "401k" just with a different name, in fact its the lowest costing 401k program in the country by FAR. We just dont get an employer match, most people who work for a company that has a 401k dont receive a match either. We get a pension on top of it, if you are a 20 yr MSGT and retire you get a pension that is the equivilent of having about $1.5 Million in TSP converted to an annuity. That means you would have to save about 75k a year starting your first yr of service to yr 20 to end up with that balance. And saying the 401k "system" is going to collapse? sorry but thats not even a possibility, the baby boomers are in such a wide age range and have such diverse asset allocations that they will not have any impact on the stock market. Do you think they are all going to get together and say "we should all sell every equity we own and all switch to 100%bonds that are paying a historicly low 1.8%" doubtful. Even when fully retired most people still have a percentage of their portfolio in stocks/equity mutual funds to sustain long term withdrawls.

The Baby Boomers are just starting to retire and pull money out of the stock market. 401K is just another bubble inflated by Giant Corporate Conglomerates. The boomer's buying thru the 401K scam was primary reason for the bull market of the 80's and 90's. When tens of millions of them start selling in the next decades? do you still think TSP's going to be getting a 7% rate of return? I hope you're right and all the stars and planets line up. but, I think this is going to be a disaster for the Military. Better get your kids ready for the draft if this happens.

imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
02-21-2013, 09:14 PM
I think we should drop the EPR from testing, the averages are usually around 130 anyway. There should instead be negative points assessed for getting in trouble which is usually the reason behind a lower rating in the first place.


Yeah, I think we all know the popular retort to the idea of dropping the EPR out of the scoring for WAPS, but it's pretty much a moot point right now. As you said, most of us are going in there with damn near the same amount of points for our EPRs. Now getting rid of them would help make this process more about rewarded good testers, but since it pretty much already is, why not acknowledge that fact? Sometimes I think we get our wires crossed on testing these days. Once upon a time it seemed that those that got promoted fast were high speed. Now, I see a lot of ambition, but I don't see remotely as much competency when it comes performing our jobs.

Rainmaker
02-21-2013, 09:20 PM
Exactly how much stock do you think baby boomers who are about to retire own? Any financial advisor would recommend a person diversify. They also recommend that the closer you to get to retiring the less stock you should own. At this point baby boomers are buying highly rated bonds, gold, and CDs. Your logic makes no sense on this response. Also the 401K managers would clearly be smart enough to have the money diversified as well. Just look at the rate of return on TSP. Even in a down market years it has not been bad at all.

Well most of them aren't going to retire. Their going to work till they get too sick to work and become a burden on society or they drop dead. You mean take advice from the same financial advisors and 401K managers that didn't see the hit in 2007, that took the last 6 years to recover? or do you mean the Big Corporate CEOs and hedge fund manager's that used to make 3 times more than the average worker in the 1950s but, now make 300 times more, the one's that saw it coming and shorted the market? That took $50Million dollar bonuses for outsourcing our manufacturing base to the 3rd world for stock profits? Do you think they give a shit what happens to the average worker's 401K 20-30 years from now? Do you think they or the Congress they've bought off cares what happens to future generations of American's that give 20 years up in the military?

imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
02-21-2013, 09:26 PM
Well most of them aren't going to retire. Their going to work till they get too sick to work and become a burden on society or they drop dead. You mean take advice from the same financial advisors and 401K managers that didn't see the hit in 2007, that took the last 6 years to recover? or do you mean the Big Corporate CEOs and hedge fund manager's that used to make 3 times more than the average worker in the 1950s but, now make 300 times more, the one's that saw it coming and shorted the market? That took $50Million dollar bonuses for outsourcing our manufacturing base to the 3rd world for stock profits? Do you think they give a shit what happens to the average worker's 401K 20-30 years from now? Do you think they or the Congress they've bought off cares what happens to future generations of American's that give 20 years up in the military?

While you make some valid points, diversifying your portfolio is essential, man.

Rainmaker
02-21-2013, 09:45 PM
While you make some valid points, diversifying your portfolio is essential, man.

Rainmaker be all abouts diversity bro!

mikezulu1
02-22-2013, 02:24 PM
I'd be interested to know what self directed funds you have? Do you pay a sales load? What are the expense ratios of those funds. Around 73% of actively managed funds dont the be index they track in any given year, so in fact over the long haul 20-30yrs an index fund will outperform virtually EVERY acitive fund that tracks its index. Factor in your sales load and expense ratio(if you pay anything over 0.75% youre being robbed) and the numbers arent even close. If you like active funds I would take a look at Vanguard they specialize in index mutual funds but also carry some very rock solid active funds, no sales loads or hidden fees and expense ratios that are close to what TSP charges. I dont work for them, just really like the company, so many people have no idea how bad they are taken to the cleaner when it comes to a funds expense ratio and sales fees. And just how bad it will eat into you portfolio balance over the long term.

Rainmaker
02-22-2013, 03:58 PM
I'd be interested to know what self directed funds you have? Do you pay a sales load? What are the expense ratios of those funds. Around 73% of actively managed funds dont the be index they track in any given year, so in fact over the long haul 20-30yrs an index fund will outperform virtually EVERY acitive fund that tracks its index. Factor in your sales load and expense ratio(if you pay anything over 0.75% youre being robbed) and the numbers arent even close. If you like active funds I would take a look at Vanguard they specialize in index mutual funds but also carry some very rock solid active funds, no sales loads or hidden fees and expense ratios that are close to what TSP charges. I dont work for them, just really like the company, so many people have no idea how bad they are taken to the cleaner when it comes to a funds expense ratio and sales fees. And just how bad it will eat into you portfolio balance over the long term.

Lately Rainmaker be self directing most of hiss excess funds at the local parimutuel events. Rainmaker finds He get a higher rate a return wagering on the Pic 6 carryover at the Monday Matinee than he do wiff his TSP. it's pretty easy to tell which dogs are doping.

Rainmaker
02-22-2013, 08:26 PM
Did anyone here happen to attend? I caught some tidbits second hand, but I was hoping someone else might be able to confirm some of the info that was passed along to me. Among other things, I was told:


- Like so many others, he feels our rating system could be flawed. Like many before him, he preached accurate ratings (i.e. don't hand out 5s like candy). The idea of marking one down for not completing PME commensurate with their rank was mentioned (i.e. MSgt without course 14 accomplished). Now what didn't get relayed to me is his thoughts about EPRs and the points they earn you, which brings me to the next point of interest.

- I heard he feels the scoring for promotions might need to be refined as well. Apparently he wonders why a SrA that makes SSgt at 6 years should get more points to help him/her make SSgt than a SrA making SSgt at 4 years. Now what wasn't relayed to me is the fact that there had been a trend of fewer people testing for years now, yet a higher rate of people being promoted, so I'm not sure that the "too many Chiefs and not enough Indians" epidemic is a concern, despite fiscal uncertainties. My point, is that it's easier to lead if there's actually someone to lead & if money is such a concern, perhaps we should reconsider how quickly some of these stripes are being handed out?

- I heard about another PT change on the horizon. The Cliff's Notes version sounded like there's a concern that the PT test hasn't done enough to get rid of or "reform" some folks that may not represent the image the Air Force would like to portray. There was talk about bringing back measurements of the neck as well. Unfortunately, this is all I was told on the subject.

- Naturally, money came up as well. Apparently there's talk of retirements becoming 401Ks in the future. I was told that he clarified it shouldn't happen to anyone wearing a uniform right now, or those that are already retired, but those thinking of joining down the road may not receive the same benefits. Speaking of benefits, I heard he mentioned that we'll all have to chip in more to TriCare, because there's no way we can continue to receive what we do now without paying more. Interestingly enough, it also sounded like he spoke about sequestration as if it was going to happen, and we can count on readiness being effected by mid May (I've heard the same at a HQ).



Now despite the fact that it will probably seem like b.s., I'm honestly not trying to start any rumors here. What I am hoping for is that someone here has heard him speak recently, and perhaps they can verify some of this and maybe even elaborate. If not, nevermind. :)

Rainmaker wonder if CMSgt Cody will push to get rid of the ridiculous prohibition on group study for WAPS testing? I imagine it worked out well for CMSgt Cody and his wife CMSgt Cody. Oops i left my marked up PFE in the bathroom. Besides, Giving people additional points for things like Time in Grade and actual experience is about as silly as using racist standardized testing to objectively measure someone's knowledge of a subject.

Robert F. Dorr
02-22-2013, 09:20 PM
Rainmaker be all abouts diversity bro!

Rainmaker gots dat diversity all up the bazoo.

strataboomer
02-22-2013, 11:21 PM
Rainmaker wonder if CMSgt Cody will push to get rid of the ridiculous prohibition on group study for WAPS testing? I imagine it worked out well for CMSgt Cody and his wife CMSgt Cody. Oops i left my marked up PFE in the bathroom. Besides, Giving people additional points for things like Time in Grade and actual experience is about as silly as using racist standardized testing to objectively measure someone's knowledge of a subject.

Strataboomer wonders if Rainmaker is a big of an idiot as he sounds. To infer that CMSAF Cody or CMSgt Cody violated group study rules is a a personal attack on the Chief and his wife. I have had the pleasure to have known each of the Chiefs and I can tell you that this assumption is wrong. I am dual mil and I can tell you that intergrity does not end once your at home.
Before you make statements like this I would ask you to pull your head out of your arse.

That is all.

Capt Alfredo
02-23-2013, 12:15 AM
Strataboomer wonders if Rainmaker is a big of an idiot as he sounds. To infer that CMSAF Cody or CMSgt Cody violated group study rules is a a personal attack on the Chief and his wife. I have had the pleasure to have known each of the Chiefs and I can tell you that this assumption is wrong. I am dual mil and I can tell you that intergrity does not end once your at home.
Before you make statements like this I would ask you to pull your head out of your arse.

That is all.

Rainmaker implied. You inferred based on his implication. I'm sure RFD agrees.

strataboomer
02-23-2013, 12:19 AM
Rainmaker implied. You inferred based on his implication. I'm sure RFD agrees.

Implied....inferred.....tomato tomato....My point is that an attack one ones intergrity is uncalled for.

Rainmaker
02-25-2013, 02:24 PM
Strataboomer wonders if Rainmaker is a big of an idiot as he sounds. To infer that CMSAF Cody or CMSgt Cody violated group study rules is a a personal attack on the Chief and his wife. I have had the pleasure to have known each of the Chiefs and I can tell you that this assumption is wrong. I am dual mil and I can tell you that intergrity does not end once your at home.
Before you make statements like this I would ask you to pull your head out of your arse.

That is all.

Hopefully your buddies have thicker skin than you do. It's a public position so see Dr. Webster for the definiton of hyperbole before gettin your blue panties all wadded up.

I’ll have to take your word for it on Mil-Mil couples never discussing such matters as promotion testing at home. Rainmaker is sure that never happens. Rainmaker always figure if the AF wanted him to have a G.I. wife they would've issued him one.

But, while we’re on the subject of core values Slick. What kind of message does it send for a bunch of General Officers and their staffs to spend Tens of Thousands of dollars taking their annual trip to Disney World a week before a sequestration that will supposedly result in Tens of Thousands of Active duty troops getting involuntarily separated and nearly a Million DoD Civilian employees getting put on Leave without Pay?

Robert F. Dorr
03-11-2013, 08:31 PM
Doesn't seem to know the difference between "imply" and "infer," either.

Capt Alfredo
03-12-2013, 12:14 AM
Doesn't seem to know the difference between "imply" and "infer," either.

I've almost given up on this uphill battle. Descriptivists will tell us words mean what we want them to mean, irrespective of the loss of nuance.

Rainmaker
03-12-2013, 07:55 PM
Rainmaker went to the Oracle at Gibtown and he asked it: Can you explain the difference between imply and infer?
Oracle say: "What I look like a Gotdamn Thesaurus!?? Now put another quarter in the machine and get your nappy ass outta here bitch!!

RobotChicken
03-12-2013, 08:19 PM
:doh Hey....whatever happened to 'Grammar Police', she get 'RIF 'ed' too? :horn