PDA

View Full Version : Official: DoD will 'aggressively' target military pay, troop levels



BURAWSKI
09-09-2013, 10:28 PM
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130909/NEWS/309090030/Official-DoD-will-aggressively-target-military-pay-troop-levels


The military is looking at reducing benefits significantly in order to save money. I can't understand why they can't cut back on some of the more expensive weapon programs in order to avoid taking benefits away. At least don't do this in a one-sided way where the only cuts seem to come from personnel. I can think of a lot of costly programs that could be curtailed or eliminated in order to avoid doing this. It might be a good time to start voicing your opinion to Congress. They say it won't affect retention or recruiting but I have my doubts.

CaliMC
09-09-2013, 10:57 PM
I don't disagree that there are many programs that could be cut, but personnel costs (to include active/retired pay and benefits) have risen exponentially in the last decade and are quickly becoming unsustainable. From a national security perspective, funding an upgrade to a missile system should take precedence over a payraise. There are many people in the private sector who don't receive raises every year.

BURAWSKI
09-10-2013, 01:01 AM
Well, yes I see what you mean. I don't think our Congress and President appreciate the military enough though. I mean using it for political reasons and such. It is difficult to equate the service member from those in the private sector. After all, that is what part of the problem is. Personally I think service members have earned a decent pay raise for what they do. The reality of cuts is coming home to roost. I just meant that the focus of the cuts should not be in just one area. The military entitlement programs should be about the last thing to cut after considering all of the other areas where waste and overspending occur. From my experiences it has been made clear to me that the military hasn't done nearly enough in aggressively cutting the waste that never gets adequate attention. There is a lot of it, and why doesn't that get more publicity I wonder. The President is contemplating taking military action in Syria and how much will that cost the military? Is it necessary? Is it appropriate since the reason given is National Security. I would have to say that National Security is just an excuse to use the military again as a political pawn. How much money was wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan? It was along the order of billions of dollars. That is not to mention all of the unnecessary lives lost on both sides. It's happening again.

Bunch
09-10-2013, 06:02 AM
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130909/NEWS/309090030/Official-DoD-will-aggressively-target-military-pay-troop-levels


The military is looking at reducing benefits significantly in order to save money. I can't understand why they can't cut back on some of the more expensive weapon programs in order to avoid taking benefits away. At least don't do this in a one-sided way where the only cuts seem to come from personnel. I can think of a lot of costly programs that could be curtailed or eliminated in order to avoid doing this. It might be a good time to start voicing your opinion to Congress. They say it won't affect retention or recruiting but I have my doubts.

We have seen this movie before and we all know how it ends.

Pullinteeth
09-10-2013, 04:53 PM
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130909/NEWS/309090030/Official-DoD-will-aggressively-target-military-pay-troop-levels


The military is looking at reducing benefits significantly in order to save money. I can't understand why they can't cut back on some of the more expensive weapon programs in order to avoid taking benefits away. At least don't do this in a one-sided way where the only cuts seem to come from personnel. I can think of a lot of costly programs that could be curtailed or eliminated in order to avoid doing this. It might be a good time to start voicing your opinion to Congress. They say it won't affect retention or recruiting but I have my doubts.

Hmmmm.....do you think possibly they don't really care if (in fact hope) recruiting/retention is negatively impacted? That means fewer people they have to give invol-sep pay to....

sandsjames
09-10-2013, 04:54 PM
Hmmmm.....do you think possibly they don't really care if (in fact hope) recruiting/retention is negatively impacted? That means fewer people they have to give invol-sep pay to....

Yep, until we end up in a full scale conflict. Then it will all change again.

sandsjames
09-10-2013, 04:58 PM
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130909/NEWS/309090030/Official-DoD-will-aggressively-target-military-pay-troop-levels


The military is looking at reducing benefits significantly in order to save money. I can't understand why they can't cut back on some of the more expensive weapon programs in order to avoid taking benefits away. At least don't do this in a one-sided way where the only cuts seem to come from personnel. I can think of a lot of costly programs that could be curtailed or eliminated in order to avoid doing this. It might be a good time to start voicing your opinion to Congress. They say it won't affect retention or recruiting but I have my doubts.

What gets me most, even more than the pay, is they talk about how the personnel cuts will affect the Marines and Army the most. What this means for the Air Force is more BS deployments with the Army. Seems it would make more sense to cut AF personnel and keep the Army able to sustain itself. That way you have the same amount of people, but the ones doing it are actually trained for the situations.

Pullinteeth
09-10-2013, 05:07 PM
What gets me most, even more than the pay, is they talk about how the personnel cuts will affect the Marines and Army the most. What this means for the Air Force is more BS deployments with the Army. Seems it would make more sense to cut AF personnel and keep the Army able to sustain itself. That way you have the same amount of people, but the ones doing it are actually trained for the situations.

Ahhhhbut you would be missing the trend. The AF cut early (to pay for planes), then the Navy jumped on board and started slashing. While the intention of the AF cuts wasn't to save $$ overall, that is what is happening now. The Army and Marine Corps are being forced to reduce endstrength because they haven't over the past decade-unlike the AF and USN...