PDA

View Full Version : Budget deal would reduce COLAs for some military retirees



TSgt"M"
12-16-2013, 04:16 PM
Under the Bipartisan Budget deal.

Working-age military retirees would receive an annual pay adjustment that is 1 percentage point less than the rise in consumer prices. For example, the 1.7 percent COLA that took effect on Dec. 1 and will first appear in January checks would be just 0.7 percent for military retirees under age 62 but still be 1.7 percent for older retirees if the proposal were now in effect. (See more at 10 Dec Army Times)

garhkal
12-16-2013, 08:16 PM
As long as that is all that is reduced i am ok with it.

efmbman
12-16-2013, 11:24 PM
Part of the reasoning behind this makes sense to me. Hitting the 20-mark and retiring from the military can happen as early as age 38. I was 42 when I retired. This is considered within working age... and rightfully so. As many have before me have, I got a GS position and I am well compensated. I don't think I will miss the 1%.

Cookie Monster
12-16-2013, 11:37 PM
The problem I have with this COLA thing is the bait & switch aspect. Our retirements will become less valuable every year and this was NOT what we were promised. A previous generation can raise a similar ruckus about healthcare. Would anyone here be really shocked if our pensions started getting docked at some point in the future?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
12-17-2013, 01:08 AM
I have a problem with this. First, not all "working age" retirees have jobs, or can find jobs. Secondly, cutting COLA is the same as a pay cut. If your pay isn't keeping up with inflation, then you are LOOSING pay. Some of you may think this isn't a big deal, but 1% loss per year in COLA adds up to a 20% reduction in pay (buying power) in 20 years. Would you accept an outright 20% cut in pay right now? If not, then why is it ok in 20 years from now? Third, if Congress can so easily cut your COLA today with a stroke of a pen, then you can bet more cuts can and will happen later. The time to hold the line is now, not when they eventually flat out tell you they're going to cut an immediate 5%, 10% or more.

Gonzo432
12-17-2013, 01:34 AM
Both the big blue muppet and the retired guy make good points. There was an agreement: this many years of service beginning on this date = a specific retirement. I'm High-3, the deal was 50% of average high-3 base pay for 20, plus 2.5% for each year afterwards plus full COLA. If they don't honor COLA (ESPECIALLY if hell ain't raised about it), what's next? If I wanted REDUX retirement I'd have enlisted a year later. WRITE YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS!

garhkal
12-17-2013, 01:58 AM
The problem I have with this COLA thing is the bait & switch aspect. Our retirements will become less valuable every year and this was NOT what we were promised. A previous generation can raise a similar ruckus about healthcare. Would anyone here be really shocked if our pensions started getting docked at some point in the future?

True. Often they start with something innocuous and small. Then soon we get hit elsewhere.

TSgt"M"
12-17-2013, 12:24 PM
I've always thought that the time when they would attack our pensions, the country would be collapsing, (maybe it is) and there would be far more worse things to worry about. Like the folks above I think this is terrible step in a direction that can't or won't be turned around. Hang on to your ass, this is starting to get disturbing.

71Fish
12-17-2013, 12:58 PM
I've always thought that the time when they would attack our pensions, the country would be collapsing, (maybe it is) and there would be far more worse things to worry about. Like the folks above I think this is terrible step in a direction that can't or won't be turned around. Hang on to your ass, this is starting to get disturbing.

The time is nigh.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
12-17-2013, 01:02 PM
I've always thought that the time when they would attack our pensions, the country would be collapsing, (maybe it is) and there would be far more worse things to worry about. Like the folks above I think this is terrible step in a direction that can't or won't be turned around. Hang on to your ass, this is starting to get disturbing.

This is why anytime I hear general officers, individual politicians and political appointees promise "current retirees and troops will be grandfathered from pension cuts," I know they're full of shit. The House of Representatives controls the purse strings. Anybody else who makes these promises to appease us is being disingenuous, and they know it.

Cookie Monster
12-17-2013, 01:39 PM
Remember the days when politicians competed with other politicians to to give us the most money? "I support the troops more than you!"

Rainmaker
12-17-2013, 03:20 PM
Remember the days when politicians competed with other politicians to to give us the most money? "I support the troops more than you!"




" Thank you for your service. I know we told you that existing personnel and retirees already receiving benefits would be “grandfathered in” to any revised retirement system. But, "We" need a 5th-generation fighter." First Beltway Bandit Truth- Hardware is more important than people.

Sincerely,
Joint Chiefs of Staff

P.S. Please send us your children to sacrifice their 20's and 30's serving in our perpetual wars for perpetual peace. We promise to honor our agreements with them next time.

TSgt"M"
12-17-2013, 03:30 PM
Time to fly the Gadsden flag.

TSgt"M"
12-17-2013, 05:25 PM
Military personnel who are medically retired — those with combat or service-related injuries so severe they were offered full military retirement pay and benefits — would see their retired pay cut as a result of the 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said Tuesday.

Just keeps getting better

Cookie Monster
12-17-2013, 06:04 PM
I suppose it's only fair to point out a reality of government budget cutting...

Me: "Hey government, cut spending!"
Gov't: "OK. Your job is being eliminated. Or maybe just a part of your pension."
Me: "HOW DARE YOU"

TSgt"M"
12-17-2013, 06:33 PM
IMe: "HOW DARE YOU"

Know what ya mean but didn't think it would start here. Are we an easy target?

Rainmaker
12-17-2013, 06:40 PM
I suppose it's only fair to point out a reality of government budget cutting...

Me: "Hey government, cut spending!"
Gov't: "OK. Your job is being eliminated. Or maybe just a part of your pension."
Me: "HOW DARE YOU"

It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that all red team/blue team politicians are bank-owned. Other than social policy there is no measurable difference between the two parties.
All this austerity/ budget fight shit-show is just a smoke screen to divert attention to the FED printing money (inflationary tax/theft) to prop up Usurious corporations at the expense of the majority of citizens (read Subjects). Take Paul Ryan a man who's been on Captiol Hill his whole adult life, voted for TARP bailouts , voted to repeal Glass Stegal regulation of the banks, has accrued over $50 Million in assets through his "blind" trust all the while. and then lectures us on responsibility. Both parties need to go. But, for that to happen, one needs to go first. This why Rainmaker a lifelong registered republican who always voted the ticket his whole adult life now writes in Mick E. Mouse on his ballot. NomSayin?

garhkal
12-17-2013, 07:15 PM
Know what ya mean but didn't think it would start here. Are we an easy target?

Well they won't cut their own pensions, so of course we are an easier target.

RetC141BFCC
12-19-2013, 04:41 PM
I joined in 1978 I was promised free health care for myself and my Family if I stayed 20 years. Promise broken. I was promised COLA increase to keep pace with inflation Promise Broken. I was told I could use the commissary and BX if I chose to stay 20 years. Trying to break THAT PROMISE NOW. What is next? I never thought I would be lied to about pay issues. I heard so much about all retires and active troops would be grandfathered. Hey I am a little bitter right now. If the government needs to save money then let it be a shared pain. Cut Social Security the political third rail cut that 1 percent. Railroad Retirement cut that 1 percent. Federal retires cut that 1 percent. Why cut my pay as you fly brand new never used planes to the boneyard. All the politicians can kiss my ASS next veterans day at the flag pole in from of congress at 12 Noon bitter yes. I support the troops they say. Nope thank for your service now get the hell out. Oh you stayed sorry can’t pay you what we promised. Let congress cut their own retirement check then I will buy off on it.

garhkal
12-19-2013, 06:51 PM
Exactly.. They are all for 'showing their support for the troops' but not when it matters..

Rainmaker
12-19-2013, 08:39 PM
Exactly.. They are all for 'showing their support for the troops' but not when it matters..

Rainmaker not sure why anyone surprised by this. Supporting the troops to most Americans means putting a bumper sticker on your car or buying a wounded warrior tee shirt. that's all. Does anyone in their right mind really think inflation is only 2%??? Or unemployment is really 7%? And the economy has recovered?

Folks. The country is busted. The cut is only symbolic. $7B or whatever they save doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's social conditioning. If they can sacrifice vets pensions then they can sacrifice all of it. The Middle class is being dismantled for 2 decades. Only Like shit going down the drain. it’s speeding up now. Private company pensions were robbed along time ago. Continued Fed money printing and Zero Interest-rate policy is theft. This theft is enabled by CONgress (Lawyers) and the Press (propaganda Ministry). Next up chained CPI, more bailouts for big everything. Govt control (Read confiscation) of 401K’s/IRA’s forcing them into long term no intrest T-bonds. because, No one else buys our debt anymore. As the middle gets squeezed out. economy will tank more and they will have to reset it with a devalued currency. They will import more third world slaves (After "Amnesty) to keep you in between and greatful for what little you have left. The Free Shit Army will not riot so long as they have a flat screen and a smart phone. The good point is that by the time they reset the currency. Things will be so bad. we'll be begging them to do it.

Pay off your house, get out of paper assets (if you have any), don't be fooled by MSM cheerleading the stock rally (it's going to tank again) buy long term necessities now, quality tools, precious metals (physical gold, silver and lead) and you can't lose. NomSayin?

imported_MERC8401
12-20-2013, 12:49 AM
I'm okay with this 1% reduction...cuts need to happen in all spending. Don't be upset when it's your stuff getting cut. You were only promised the percentages you receive based on legislation passed at the time. Quick lesson in government....legislation changes...there are no forever promises.

sandsjames
12-20-2013, 12:54 AM
Quick lesson in government....legislation changes...there are no forever promises.

Translated...people will tell you what you want to hear in order to get elected and, once in office, will prove that they don't give a shit about you. Not just towards the military, but towards all citizens. For people to think that there won't be some sort of revolution sometime in the next 30 years is crazy. The politicians will back themselves into a corner and won't be able to get out. The people will get angry and stay angry and things a change will be forced.

imported_MERC8401
12-20-2013, 03:01 AM
Absolutely sandsjames...not saying it's right...but it's definitley how the process works. I just get tired of people saying they were "promised" this and that. I didn't read anything in my contract concerning retirement and COLA allowances. There aren't any "participation" trohpies in life...no one owes us anything. We may feel entilted...because most of us bought into the BS on how we are all so "brave" and "heroric" by serving our country, even though a very small percentage of the people in the military even risk our lives when we put on the uniform. If you joined the military for the "lifetime" benefits and the military discounts at your local Footlocker, you joined for the wrong reason and I'm happy they are cutting your COLA. Because at the end of the day...that forces us all to truly serve for the good of our country.

USN - Retired
12-20-2013, 04:39 AM
I'm okay with this 1% reduction...cuts need to happen in all spending. Don't be upset when it's your stuff getting cut. You were only promised the percentages you receive based on legislation passed at the time. Quick lesson in government....legislation changes...there are no forever promises.

Promises and pie-crusts are made to be broken. ~Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)

sandsjames
12-20-2013, 12:14 PM
Absolutely sandsjames...not saying it's right...but it's definitley how the process works. I just get tired of people saying they were "promised" this and that. I didn't read anything in my contract concerning retirement and COLA allowances. There aren't any "participation" trohpies in life...no one owes us anything. We may feel entilted...because most of us bought into the BS on how we are all so "brave" and "heroric" by serving our country, even though a very small percentage of the people in the military even risk our lives when we put on the uniform. If you joined the military for the "lifetime" benefits and the military discounts at your local Footlocker, you joined for the wrong reason and I'm happy they are cutting your COLA. Because at the end of the day...that forces us all to truly serve for the good of our country.

Come on now. There were certain things that were used as incentive for doing 20 years of service. As far as COLA allowances go, you are right. There was nothing in the contract, nothing implied, nothing promised saying that the COLA would remain at a rate equal to inflation.

Now, if you think that the large majority of people don't stay in for at least 20 because of the lifetime benefits then you are way off base. That's why those benefits are offered. Without that incentive, good luck getting most people past the years required to earn the GI Bill.

Cookie Monster
12-20-2013, 12:37 PM
If you joined the military for the "lifetime" benefits and the military discounts at your local Footlocker, you joined for the wrong reason and I'm happy they are cutting your COLA. Because at the end of the day...that forces us all to truly serve for the good of our country.

Why look down on a person's motivation to serve? Sure, it could be patriotism or some other "correct" reason. But the government offers financial incentives to serve so why judge someone who takes that particular bait? It's the same reason why people were right to complain about the TA shenanigans recently. If I'm offered a financial incentive to serve (education, healthcare, pension) and it's taken away down the road, you're damn right I have cause to make a stink.

RetC141BFCC
12-20-2013, 12:46 PM
I'm okay with this 1% reduction...cuts need to happen in all spending. Don't be upset when it's your stuff getting cut. You were only promised the percentages you receive based on legislation passed at the time. Quick lesson in government....legislation changes...there are no forever promises.

I don't know when you enlisted but I was promised a lot. Let me tell you were I stand on this issue. If you want to cut my COLA OK if you share the pain. The Military is a easy target to cut. We are less then 1 percent of the US Population. Cut Congress pension cut everybody across the board. As far as free health care. Col Bud Day was the lead Lawyer on this law suite.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to consider a November 18, 2002 Federal Appeals Court ruling in a suit filed against the government of the United States on behalf of World War II and Korean era military retirees. Retired Air Force Colonel George “Bud” Day, a highly decorated Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, filed a breach of contract suit on behalf of two retired colonels who contended they had been recruited into military service as young men with the promise of lifetime health care upon retirement after serving at least 20 years in uniform

“The Appeals Court ruled against the plaintiffs on a technicality, arguing that promises by recruiters were invalid because only Congress could authorize military health care, which Congress had not done when the plaintiffs entered the service,” said Van Hollen. “But although the retired colonels lost their case on that technicality, I believe they won their moral battle on principle.”

The Court ruling said, in part, “We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. . . . Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees.”

, “The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act was originally introduced in 1999 to acknowledge the promises made in good faith to America's military retirees. But now that the Courts have ruled that only Congress can make good on promises made to our military retirees, it is more important than ever that Congress pass this bill.” Van Hollen noted that the new bill offers more meaningful restitution for broken promises by waiving both the Part B premium and the late fee for World War II and Korean era military retirees.

The new bill also addresses broken promises made to military retirees who joined the service after 1956. “Even though laws were on the books beginning in 1956 that defined and limited military retiree health care,” he said, “the sad truth is that the empty promise of lifetime health care was used as a recruiting tool for many years beyond the scope of the Col. Day's case, to those who entered the military after 1956. This is documented in recruiting literature well into the 1990s. We must keep our promises to them, too.”

I am asking to be treated the same as every other retire. No Better or no worse

TSgt"M"
12-20-2013, 01:31 PM
We're the "Test Frogs". They just turned up the heat to simmer. If we don't or can't turn this around they're going to boil the economic flesh off of us before they go after the rest of the country. Write your congressmen and senators.

imported_MERC8401
12-20-2013, 02:21 PM
I don't know when you enlisted but I was promised a lot. Let me tell you were I stand on this issue. If you want to cut my COLA OK if you share the pain. The Military is a easy target to cut. We are less then 1 percent of the US Population. Cut Congress pension cut everybody across the board.

I am asking to be treated the same as every other retire. No Better or no worse

I enlisted in 1994...and all I was promised was a GI Bill and health and dental care while I served. Talk of a retirement check and health/dental benefits for life was told to me by people already in the service once I got in. I feel for all of us during these times....and I understand you wanted to be treated like every other retiree...but to what end? Till we have financial collapse? Till the people currently in can't receive a pension? But that's ok right...because you got yours. See we all need to sacrifice some...for the good of all. A lot of people like to talk about how we are less than 1% of the population, but let's not forget that the defense budget far exceeds anything else our country spends money on...and let me tell you...it's not all going to fancy jets. I understand people getting upset because they feel like they were promised stuff. But it's time we come to terms with the fact that our government screwed up...and shouldn't have made those promises. And we need to do the right thing and bail them out.

imported_MERC8401
12-20-2013, 02:27 PM
We're the "Test Frogs". They just turned up the heat to simmer. If we don't or can't turn this around they're going to boil the economic flesh off of us before they go after the rest of the country. Write your congressmen and senators.

You do realize we are only talking about a reduction in COLA right? Not a reduction in someone's retirement. You know most of the military people I know who retire are only 38 to 42 years old. They have other jobs...usually still in the military as a GS or sometime contractor. 10 to 15 years after taking that job...they retire again and draw another pension...by this time...they are coming close to drawing Social Security. So here this person sits...drawing two government pensions and SS benefits...and then complains because they are going to lose 1% from COLA. Are you fucking kidding me?

Now this might not be an example for every retiree, but we are far from the days of military members getting out and being totally homeless/jobless. And let's face it...our retirement isn't something that can be lived on anyway.

The sky is not falling.

efmbman
12-20-2013, 02:31 PM
MERC8401: I agree in principle with many of your points, but I have a nagging concern about this.

Since money is "being saved" by cutting this benefit, what will that "saved money" be used for? None of the news articles I have seen addressed this nor asked this. If this money is only going to spent in other areas, then the benefit of preventing any financial collapse is negated. It is not "saved" after all, only spent on something else.

Mjölnir
12-20-2013, 02:47 PM
Hmmmm

RetC141BFCC
12-20-2013, 02:54 PM
I enlisted in 1994...and all I was promised was a GI Bill and health and dental care while I served. Talk of a retirement check and health/dental benefits for life was told to me by people already in the service once I got in. I feel for all of us during these times....and I understand you wanted to be treated like every other retiree...but to what end? Till we have financial collapse? Till the people currently in can't receive a pension? But that's ok right...because you got yours. See we all need to sacrifice some...for the good of all. A lot of people like to talk about how we are less than 1% of the population, but let's not forget that the defense budget far exceeds anything else our country spends money on...and let me tell you...it's not all going to fancy jets. I understand people getting upset because they feel like they were promised stuff. But it's time we come to terms with the fact that our government screwed up...and shouldn't have made those promises. And we need to do the right thing and bail them out.
I have to agree with you on some things and I do not have a problem with the COLA cut. The problem I have is its military only. Make it a shared pain across the board.

sandsjames
12-20-2013, 03:28 PM
Now this might not be an example for every retiree, but we are far from the days of military members getting out and being totally homeless/jobless. And let's face it...our retirement isn't something that can be lived on anyway.



Sure it is, I'm doing just fine. I have a part time side job for some extra spending money, but retirement covers all my bills and food so, in the worst case scenario I can live in my house, pay bills, and eat.

Rainmaker
12-20-2013, 03:33 PM
Now Rainmaker understand this was not a technically a breach of “contract”. But, It is a breach of Faith.

Anyone remember the old Air Force benefits fact sheet? Are they still using it? It was supposed to be used by Career advisors and supervisors at every feedback session to encourage you to roger up for another 4 years of your life spent fighting the GWOT crusade in some dusty shithole. While your career advisor and political hack CCM decorated their I love me walls and played officer at Harvard Business seminars and command sponsored parties.

Apparently it’s not worth the paper it was printed on. But, Rainmaker copied this from his old one.

“High-3 (Note 6)
Entered service on or after 8 Sep 80 and before 1 Aug 86
2.5% times the years of service times the average of the highest 36 months of basic pay
Full inflation protection; COLA based on Consumer Price Index (CPI)”

Where exactly is CMSAF Cody on this one? How bout CSAF? Why aren’t they and the others Publically making a stink about this? How much respect and dignity is a troop supposed to feel when their leadership lets them continually get F#*ked over by their political masters? Actions speak louder than words. Where is Petraeus, McChrystal, Powell and all the others that have been treated like celebrity Rock stars for the last 20 years on this? Real leaders like Norman Swartzkopf and CMSAF Airey must be rolling over in their graves.

Stalwart
12-20-2013, 03:38 PM
How much respect and dignity is a troop supposed to feel when their leadership lets them continually get F#*ked over by their political masters?

There isn't much leadership can do about it one way or the other.

Rainmaker
12-20-2013, 03:40 PM
There isn't much leadership can do about it one way or the other.


Understand they don't make policy. they execute policy. However, If just one of the JCS would go public and resign. do you think their would be CONgressional hearings about the issue?
DoD is owned by corporate interests. Our next war will be fought by PMC's and draftees. It's obvious that's what they want. I'm ok with it. But, Let's stop Bullshitting and call it what it is.

Stalwart
12-20-2013, 03:51 PM
Do I think so? Having just finished working up there for almost a year and a half ... no, not really. Since the budget resolution that has passed both houses went through with a pretty good majority in both chambers I don't see those in the minority being able to convince the committee chairs to have hearings on the issue. And resigning in protest while a very principled move, does very little to change policy at that level.

As I have said elsewhere, when faced with inevitable change, those who accept the change have the most power to shape the details. It’s not about self-interested conformity or passively accepting defeat; it’s about making decisions based on how things are rather than how we would wish them to be. It’s about seizing the initiative.

While leadership may have legitimate concerns about policy, they do have the right, duty and the legal obligation to make those concerns known. But as far as national policy on the budget and appropriations ... that is way out of the lane of any of the service chiefs.

sandsjames
12-20-2013, 03:56 PM
Now Rainmaker understand this was not a technically a breach of “contract”. But, It is a breach of Faith.

Anyone remember the old Air Force benefits fact sheet? Are they still using it? It was supposed to be used by Career advisors and supervisors at every feedback session to encourage you to roger up for another 4 years of your life spent fighting the GWOT crusade in some dusty shithole. While your career advisor and political hack CCM decorated their I love me walls and played officer at Harvard Business seminars and command sponsored parties.

Apparently it’s not worth the paper it was printed on. But, Rainmaker copied this from his old one.

“High-3 (Note 6)
Entered service on or after 8 Sep 80 and before 1 Aug 86
2.5% times the years of service times the average of the highest 36 months of basic pay
Full inflation protection; COLA based on Consumer Price Index (CPI)”

Where exactly is CMSAF Cody on this one? How bout CSAF? Why aren’t they and the others Publically making a stink about this? How much respect and dignity is a troop supposed to feel when their leadership lets them continually get F#*ked over by their political masters? Actions speak louder than words. Where is Petraeus, McChrystal, Powell and all the others that have been treated like celebrity Rock stars for the last 20 years on this? Real leaders like Norman Swartzkopf and CMSAF Airey must be rolling over in their graves.

Absolutely...all the stuff we were told to brief our troops during each and every feedback session. Guess they figure it's ok to make liars out of us while they can say there were no promises.

sandsjames
12-20-2013, 03:57 PM
Do I think so? Having just finished working up there for almost a year and a half ... no, not really. Since the budget resolution that has passed both houses went through with a pretty good majority in both chambers I don't see those in the minority being able to convince the committee chairs to have hearings on the issue. And resigning in protest while a very principled move, does very little to change policy at that level.

As I have said elsewhere, when faced with inevitable change, those who accept the change have the most power to shape the details. It’s not about self-interested conformity or passively accepting defeat; it’s about making decisions based on how things are rather than how we would wish them to be. It’s about seizing the initiative.

While leadership may have legitimate concerns about policy, they do have the right, duty and the legal obligation to make those concerns known. But as far as national policy on the budget and appropriations ... that is way out of the lane of any of the service chiefs.

So what you're saying is that we should all just drink the kool-aid and hope that someone has our best interest in mind? Good luck with that one.

Stalwart
12-20-2013, 04:06 PM
So what you're saying is that we should all just drink the kool-aid and hope that someone has our best interest in mind? Good luck with that one.

I am just saying that you are talking about the law (the budget is a public law), and you, me, Gen or Admiral <insert name> don't have the authority to operate counter to the law. We are not the policy makers. We sign contracts or terms of service to serve, and whether you or I like it or not, Congress does have the Constitutional authority to change how we are compensated. If we don't like it, we can always go find employment or opportunities to serve elsewhere.

In part, yeah ... we have the following options:

1. drink the kool-aid and carry on.
2. resign or EAOS and transition into civilian life.

If you feel strongly enough you can get involved, contact your elected representation by phone, email, in person when they are in their districts or states. If you really feel strongly enough you can run for Congress and impact the institution from the inside, which would probably be the most effective since members are the only ones who get to vote on it.

BalboaSwing
12-20-2013, 04:26 PM
You do realize we are only talking about a reduction in COLA right? Not a reduction in someone's retirement. You know most of the military people I know who retire are only 38 to 42 years old. They have other jobs...usually still in the military as a GS or sometime contractor. 10 to 15 years after taking that job...they retire again and draw another pension...by this time...they are coming close to drawing Social Security. So here this person sits...drawing two government pensions and SS benefits...and then complains because they are going to lose 1% from COLA. Are you fucking kidding me?

Now this might not be an example for every retiree, but we are far from the days of military members getting out and being totally homeless/jobless. And let's face it...our retirement isn't something that can be lived on anyway.

The sky is not falling.

MERC8401 - Glad to see that you're willing to take a hit in order for the "greater good." I think that's what makes a lot of military members different from many people in our country, that willingness to make hard sacrifices for the betterment of our brethren. Some concerns I have about your message though. First off, please don't generalize military retirees...I'm planning on retiring in a couple of years and have no intention of being a contractor or a GS civilian. I plan on helping out at home while my wife finally is able to start her career...god knows she's been patient. As for Social Security, yes I expect to receive that when I finally reach my mid 60s...but I've looked at every paystub that I've collected since enlisting in 1991 and it appears that I've been paying into the whole time. If I pay into something for 20+ years...I think it's fair to assume that eventually I will receive something back on that investment. My point being is that not all of us will be making gobs of government money after retirement...so a 1% COLA reduction every year will soon end up being a sizable chunk of my retirement pay. I've run the numbers and it appears that my contribution to this new budget will be about $80K. In the final few years before I hit 62, my monthly retirement check will be around a $1,000 less than it would have been if the COLA increases had proceeded as they had been promised to us.

Not sure why I use the word "promise"...not sure if that is the right word for this argument. I have DD FORM 2839 that I signed around 6 years ago. In that document I'm offered a big bonus if I take the REDUX retirement option...which is a 1% reduction in my COLA allowance until I reach the age of 62. I signed the form saying I most certainly do not want their bonus or the REDUX option. My understanding is that most of us didn't take the REDUX option when it was offered. Well, now it appears that REDUX is being implemented on us anyway. So yes, I feel a little betrayed. Why are they doing this? Is the whole country about to collapse and everyone needs to take a haircut on their pay in order for us to survive? No. But look at your argument, "...Till we have financial collapse? Till the people currently in can't receive a pension? But that's ok right...because you got yours. See we all need to sacrifice some...for the good of all." So you're saying we all need to do this for the solvency of DoD. I don't think our country is even close to that yet...and if it is, they should probably look at closing tax loopholes and cutting down on energy subsidies before dinging the military retiree. Just remember, the money they are saving isn't from cutting what they pay retiree's isn't going to overall government savings. They're just taking money from military retirees and giving it to the defense industry. When I worked for DIA, I knew a contractor that went to Iraq for 6 months...he was getting $25K a month while there. That is where cuts need to be had, not military retirees.

I didn't enlist in January of 1991 for the GI Bill, Health Care, and a Retirement Plan. I did it because my country was going to war and I come from a long line of veterans/retirees who served in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and we believed in supporting our country. I stayed in initially because I loved what I did. Also, during those initial years the only retirement we had was the "stay in for 20" plan. After the 10 year point of my career I remember the work changing significantly...9/11 happened and everyone was working harder and deploying a lot more. It was trying to me and my family...and there were a LOT of tears shed and missed birthdays and holidays. But we decided that after being in 10 years, we really needed to stick it out for the retirement because otherwise we would have to start over from the beginning. There was no matching 401K plan that we could take with us somewhere else.

So yes, I'm going to fight for every benefit that was promised to me for the years of service that I've put in. I'm not going to let some bean counter, lawyer, or lobbyist take away something that I've been told for the last 23 years would be my pension without a fight. Right now it's a 1% COLA reduction for "working age" retirees. Next they change the COLA calculation they use to Chained CPI instead of just the CPI. Next they start charging us a "fair" amount for our healthcare (i.e. $4-5k a year). Then they say "working age" retiree's should be working at cushy high paying jobs...so they really don't need COLA increases at all. THEY. WILL. NOT. STOP. EVER....so we need to fight EVERY time.

Rainmaker
12-20-2013, 04:34 PM
Do I think so? Having just finished working up there for almost a year and a half ... no, not really. Since the budget resolution that has passed both houses went through with a pretty good majority in both chambers I don't see those in the minority being able to convince the committee chairs to have hearings on the issue. And resigning in protest while a very principled move, does very little to change policy at that level.

As I have said elsewhere, when faced with inevitable change, those who accept the change have the most power to shape the details. It’s not about self-interested conformity or passively accepting defeat; it’s about making decisions based on how things are rather than how we would wish them to be. It’s about seizing the initiative.

While leadership may have legitimate concerns about policy, they do have the right, duty and the legal obligation to make those concerns known. But as far as national policy on the budget and appropriations ... that is way out of the lane of any of the service chiefs.

Roger that. Got it. Making Principled decisions (based on what's right and wrong) are so out of vogue in the Kleptocratic state. Here comes the Carter/Clinton Hollow force all over again. same old story. slow roll procurement and R&D dollars into useless systems to enrich corporate parasites that are buying you trinkets and making you feel special all the while they F%#ck over the BOG that did the heavy lifting. Oh well the VA will throw em some ambien and percocets so, what more can they ask?

Sergeant eNYgma
12-20-2013, 04:39 PM
Absolutely sandsjames...not saying it's right...but it's definitley how the process works. I just get tired of people saying they were "promised" this and that. I didn't read anything in my contract concerning retirement and COLA allowances. There aren't any "participation" trohpies in life...no one owes us anything. We may feel entilted...because most of us bought into the BS on how we are all so "brave" and "heroric" by serving our country, even though a very small percentage of the people in the military even risk our lives when we put on the uniform. If you joined the military for the "lifetime" benefits and the military discounts at your local Footlocker, you joined for the wrong reason and I'm happy they are cutting your COLA. Because at the end of the day...that forces us all to truly serve for the good of our country.

Who are you to tell someone WHY they should serve? It doesn't matter....it doesn't. Being a patriot is cool and and all that but that by itself can't feed a family or you. If someone wanted to better themself for w/e reason and said "SCrew it I'll enlist" so what? As someone else said Incentives are there for a reason and if they're start disappearing (With no other sacrifcie by others like congress) YES that pisses me off, should piss you off, and should piss off everyone else who wear the uniform regardless of what their AFSC is.

mikezulu1
12-20-2013, 04:41 PM
Food for thought from the marinecorpstimes website:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131125/BENEFITS02/311250013/Top-brass-claims-personnel-costs-swamping-DoD-budget-figures-say-otherwise

One of my favorite lines in the article: A Government Accountability Office report issued in October noted that DoD’s 85 “major acquisition programs” in 2012 were a collective $411 billion over their initial cost estimates.That staggering sum of money by itself could wipe out eight of the 10 years of planned budget cuts under the sequestration law.
The most common cause for those cost overruns is “poor management,” according to an internal Pentagon report released in June called the “Performance of the Defense Acquisition System.”

So if we could cut this by 2% we would save far more than the cuts to retirees....why no mention of this by our fearless leaders?

Rainmaker
12-20-2013, 04:45 PM
I am just saying that you are talking about the law (the budget is a public law), and you, me, Gen or Admiral <insert name> don't have the authority to operate counter to the law. We are not the policy makers. We sign contracts or terms of service to serve, and whether you or I like it or not, Congress does have the Constitutional authority to change how we are compensated. If we don't like it, we can always go find employment or opportunities to serve elsewhere.

In part, yeah ... we have the following options:

1. drink the kool-aid and carry on.
2. resign or EAOS and transition into civilian life.

If you feel strongly enough you can get involved, contact your elected representation by phone, email, in person when they are in their districts or states. If you really feel strongly enough you can run for Congress and impact the institution from the inside, which would probably be the most effective since members are the only ones who get to vote on it.

General McPeak is that you? Please spare us the lecture. BTW. Nice pony tail. Constitutional Authority. Hahahah. stop it. seriously. You killin me man.. haha

Stalwart
12-20-2013, 05:07 PM
Roger that. Got it. Making Principled decisions (based on what's right and wrong) are so out of vogue in the Kleptocratic state. Here comes the Carter/Clinton Hollow force all over again. same old story. slow roll procurement and R&D dollars into useless systems to enrich corporate parasites that are buying you trinkets and making you feel special all the while they F%#ck over the BOG that did the heavy lifting. Oh well the VA will throw em some ambien and percocets so, what more can they ask?


How effective were the resignations or numbers that left active duty over desegregating the military, enacting Don't Ask Don't Tell, or allowing homosexuals to serve openly?

I certainly hope principled decisions are not out of vogue. There are fights that can be easily won and there are hard fights that are worth fighting. This is a fight that is worth fighting, but won't be won with non-effective tactics. I am saying that based on what I have observed on Capitol Hill a service chief resigning would not really be effective. Sure, it will get press, could even be a good springboard to put on a platform for their own run for office, but effective at actually changing the policy ... I don't think so. The service chiefs have a much larger platform to lobby congress on our (this impacts me too) behalf in their uniformed position.

Rainmaker
12-20-2013, 06:59 PM
How effective were the resignations or numbers that left active duty over desegregating the military, enacting Don't Ask Don't Tell, or allowing homosexuals to serve openly?

I certainly hope principled decisions are not out of vouge. There are fights that can be easily won and there are hard fights that are worth fighting. This is a fight that is worth fighting, but won't be won with non-effective tactics. I am saying that based on what I have observed on Capitol Hill a service chief resigning would not really be effective. Sure, it will get press, could even be a good springboard to put on a platform for their own run for office, but effective at actually changing the policy ... I don't think so. The service chiefs have a much larger platform to lobby congress on our (this impacts me too) behalf in their uniformed position.

We have the Services Chiefs presiding over the sequester O&M cuts, and then sparing O&M funded staff augmentation support contract employees from the cuts (while they RIF and Furlough Federal Civilians). Now that they're done f$CKING the civilians. They're going after the retirees and then the active troops next. If these Hypocrites had any DIGNITY AND RESPECT whatsoever, then there would not be a single Uniformed Service Member cut, Until every last Support Contractor Staff Augmentation employee was off the books. The Fact that there are still thousands of Staff augmentation contractors showing up to DoD tells you were our "leadership's" loyalties lie. Saying the services had no ability to determine how the cuts were applied is a BOLD FACED LIE used to justify pumping up their corporate pals interests. over the welfare of their subordinates

Stalwart
12-20-2013, 07:12 PM
Saying the services had no ability to determine how the cuts were applied is a BOLD FACED LIE used to justify pumping up their corporate cronies

That isn't what we were discussing.

I will say, I know the services were not in favor of the COLA cuts, that much is evident.

Rainmaker
12-20-2013, 07:22 PM
"Congress must permit meaningful reforms as they slash the overall budget. We will need Congress as a willing partner in making tough choices to bend the cost curve on personnel, while meeting all of our responsibilities to all of our people".- SECDEF Hagle.

What this means in Beltway Bandit speak is GO/FO Leadership thinks (if you're on active duty) you get paid too much. working-age retirees are expendable Deadbeats on the dole. and Hardware is more important to them than the people operating it (unless they're contractors). Boeing Gal Patty Murray and Pretty boy Ryan are just giving them what they asked for.

Rainmaker
12-20-2013, 07:50 PM
Can't say Section 8. Das Rayciss. Rainmaker think most of the homeless vet thing is non-vets claiming to be vets. But, none the less. 1 Homeless vet is 1 too many. NomSayin?

Sergeant eNYgma
12-20-2013, 08:21 PM
Now Rainmaker understand this was not a technically a breach of “contract”. But, It is a breach of Faith.

Anyone remember the old Air Force benefits fact sheet? Are they still using it? It was supposed to be used by Career advisors and supervisors at every feedback session to encourage you to roger up for another 4 years of your life spent fighting the GWOT crusade in some dusty shithole. While your career advisor and political hack CCM decorated their I love me walls and played officer at Harvard Business seminars and command sponsored parties.

Apparently it’s not worth the paper it was printed on. But, Rainmaker copied this from his old one.

“High-3 (Note 6)
Entered service on or after 8 Sep 80 and before 1 Aug 86
2.5% times the years of service times the average of the highest 36 months of basic pay
Full inflation protection; COLA based on Consumer Price Index (CPI)”

Where exactly is CMSAF Cody on this one? How bout CSAF? Why aren’t they and the others Publically making a stink about this? How much respect and dignity is a troop supposed to feel when their leadership lets them continually get F#*ked over by their political masters? Actions speak louder than words. Where is Petraeus, McChrystal, Powell and all the others that have been treated like celebrity Rock stars for the last 20 years on this? Real leaders like Norman Swartzkopf and CMSAF Airey must be rolling over in their graves.

Why should they care? They got "Theirs" already....they're good. CMSAF position needs to be abolished that shit is and has been useless...Cody is just as ineffective as the last one and I don't want any emails from him or any of them on how it'll be ok....it's not...and won't be for the forseeable future.

Rainmaker
12-20-2013, 08:23 PM
You do realize we are only talking about a reduction in COLA right? Not a reduction in someone's retirement. You know most of the military people I know who retire are only 38 to 42 years old. They have other jobs...usually still in the military as a GS or sometime contractor. 10 to 15 years after taking that job...they retire again and draw another pension...by this time...they are coming close to drawing Social Security. So here this person sits...drawing two government pensions and SS benefits...and then complains because they are going to lose 1% from COLA. Are you fucking kidding me?

Now this might not be an example for every retiree, but we are far from the days of military members getting out and being totally homeless/jobless. And let's face it...our retirement isn't something that can be lived on anyway.

The sky is not falling.

Rainmaker know most of his peeps are products of the public edjukation systim. However, Thanks to the interwebs, us peons no longer have to stay illiterate. Please Google Inflationary tax and the concept of compounding Interest. ALL HAIL WIKIPEDIA!!!

garhkal
12-20-2013, 08:40 PM
Pay off your house, get out of paper assets (if you have any), don't be fooled by MSM cheerleading the stock rally (it's going to tank again) buy long term necessities now, quality tools, precious metals (physical gold, silver and lead) and you can't lose. NomSayin?

Sounds like you are saying we should all become preppers like those on Doomsday preppers.


You do realize we are only talking about a reduction in COLA right? Not a reduction in someone's retirement. You know most of the military people I know who retire are only 38 to 42 years old. They have other jobs...usually still in the military as a GS or sometime contractor. 10 to 15 years after taking that job...they retire again and draw another pension...by this time...they are coming close to drawing Social Security. So here this person sits...drawing two government pensions and SS benefits...and then complains because they are going to lose 1% from COLA. Are you fucking kidding me?

I have been retired for almost 2 years (over when you take into account terminal leave and such) and have applied to close to 100 jobs in that time, EVEN at dollar general/walmart and such places.. And still have not been hired. So don't think everyone who gets out automatically gets work.


I have to agree with you on some things and I do not have a problem with the COLA cut. The problem I have is its military only. Make it a shared pain across the board.

Exactly. Hit all those who suckle on the fed dime.


Food for thought from the marinecorpstimes website:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131125/BENEFITS02/311250013/Top-brass-claims-personnel-costs-swamping-DoD-budget-figures-say-otherwise

One of my favorite lines in the article: A Government Accountability Office report issued in October noted that DoD’s 85 “major acquisition programs” in 2012 were a collective $411 billion over their initial cost estimates.That staggering sum of money by itself could wipe out eight of the 10 years of planned budget cuts under the sequestration law.
The most common cause for those cost overruns is “poor management,” according to an internal Pentagon report released in June called the “Performance of the Defense Acquisition System.”

So if we could cut this by 2% we would save far more than the cuts to retirees....why no mention of this by our fearless leaders?

Cause that would actually require them to show common sense and leadership. BY holding those firms accountable!

sandsjames
12-20-2013, 09:48 PM
If the job market was good, these cuts wouldn't be taking place. The government knows that there aren't many other options for military members so it's a great time to do whatever they want.

Things will change when (if) the economy fully recovers and the job market opens up. It's supply and demand and right now we're on the wrong side.

Rainmaker
12-22-2013, 01:19 PM
"Doomsday" preppers are idiots. You can't prep for Armageddon. "Rainy-day" preppers are not idiots. You have a responsibility as Men (Leaders of your Family) to be as ready/informed as possible.

If inflation was still calculated the way it was in the Carter years. It would be running at 8-10% a year.

When you get 1-2% COLA, a decade of no pay raises and inflation is 10%. well, it doesn't take a Math wizard to see what's happening to your standard of living.

Alll the Fed has done the last 6 years is print 6 Trillion dollars to enrich Wall street Oligarchs (that pay themselves in their own stock) of failed corporations. Everything that's been done is designed to inflate the stock market, in which the majority of American citizens have little to no stake. Most of the members of CONgress are stockholders thru their "blind" trusts. It's why they have chosen the Oligarchs over their constituents. Paul Ryan, a man who's been in "public service" his whole adult life, has a net worth of $50M. Yet, he thinks 2% COLA for Military retirees is unsustainable and wrecking the economy. Patty Murray, Wh#re for Boeing cash, calls it "a technical error".

49 Million Americans now are on Food stamps. but, corporate profits are at an all-time high. Now, what's going to happen when the next big short comes? or the EBT cards of the 50 Million members of the Free Shit Army run dry? Rainmaker don't pretend to know. but, he know this much. It ain't gonna be good. Don't tread on me. NomSayin.

RetC141BFCC
01-01-2014, 02:42 PM
In 1972 the pay rate for a E-1 with less than 4 months in the service was one hundred and 44 dollars and ten cents. In 1973 the Starting pay for an E1 was three hundred and seven dollars and 20 cents. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why the starting pay jumped thru the roof. The draft ended and the country went to an all-volunteer force. If we went to cut the cost of the Armed Forces we could cut E-1 thru E-4 pay (under 4 years) by 50 percent. I would grandfather troops that have already enlisted. Congress needs to grow a set and bring back the draft. If we drafted people into the Armed Forces we would not have such High personal costs. What do u all think about that?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
01-01-2014, 03:26 PM
In 1972 the pay rate for a E-1 with less than 4 months in the service was one hundred and 44 dollars and ten cents. In 1973 the Starting pay for an E1 was three hundred and seven dollars and 20 cents. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why the starting pay jumped thru the roof. The draft ended and the country went to an all-volunteer force. If we went to cut the cost of the Armed Forces we could cut E-1 thru E-4 pay (under 4 years) by 50 percent. I would grandfather troops that have already enlisted. Congress needs to grow a set and bring back the draft. If we drafted people into the Armed Forces we would not have such High personal costs. What do u all think about that?

I can't see a draft as very effective at filling highly technical career fields. Plus, what do you do with those who fail to meet security clearance or PT requirements? Do these people get a free pass and get to stay home?

efmbman
01-01-2014, 04:10 PM
I hope conscription is something that is never implemented again.

RetC141BFCC
01-01-2014, 04:27 PM
I can't see a draft as very effective at filling highly technical career fields. Plus, what do you do with those who fail to meet security clearance or PT requirements? Do these people get a free pass and get to stay home?

We were able to fill all our slots during the Vietnam War in the AF and the Navy. The word on the street was it was better to due 4 years in the AF then 2 years in the Army. As far as people who do not qualify there is always national service. I am believe we should be more like Israel everybody owes there country two years service.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
01-01-2014, 04:44 PM
We were able to fill all our slots during the Vietnam War in the AF and the Navy. The word on the street was it was better to due 4 years in the AF then 2 years in the Army. As far as people who do not qualify there is always national service. I am believe we should be more like Israel everybody owes there country two years service.

National service? You mean the gov should grow even bigger than it already is? I thought we were broke?

BENDER56
01-01-2014, 05:24 PM
National service? You mean the gov should grow even bigger than it already is? I thought we were broke?

Hey, let's make it a two-year unpaid internship. Isn't that how the private sector helps to cut costs nowadays?

efmbman
01-01-2014, 05:26 PM
Let's adopt the premise from Starship Troopers! "Service guarantees citizenship! Would you like to know more..?"

garhkal
01-02-2014, 05:33 AM
Let's adopt the premise from Starship Troopers! "Service guarantees citizenship! Would you like to know more..?"

In some ways i DO feel we might be better off going that route.

imported_MERC8401
01-02-2014, 10:28 PM
MERC8401 - First off, please don't generalize military retirees...I'm planning on retiring in a couple of years and have no intention of being a contractor or a GS civilian. I plan on helping out at home while my wife finally is able to start her career...god knows she's been patient. As for Social Security, yes I expect to receive that when I finally reach my mid 60s...but I've looked at every paystub that I've collected since enlisting in 1991 and it appears that I've been paying into the whole time. If I pay into something for 20+ years...I think it's fair to assume that eventually I will receive something back on that investment. My point being is that not all of us will be making gobs of government money after retirement...so a 1% COLA reduction every year will soon end up being a sizable chunk of my retirement pay. I've run the numbers and it appears that my contribution to this new budget will be about $80K. In the final few years before I hit 62, my monthly retirement check will be around a $1,000 less than it would have been if the COLA increases had proceeded as they had been promised to us.

I apologize if I made a general characterization of all military retirees...that was not done intentionally. I guess the greater point I was trying to make is that unlike most other people who retire from their professions, we are still of working age and do not have to depend solely on our pensions to get by. Now that doesn't mean that every retiree will get out and be able to find good employment, but we are far from the days of where most military retirees used to be. And although I feel bad that our COLA will take a hit, and that money can be cut from other programs...I just don't see an argument for why we should be able to keep it. I have paid nothing into my military pension...and not only will I receive that paycheck until I die, but it will continually rise each year to match inflation? That is just crazy to me. There isn't another retirement program out there that would be stupid enough to match that...especially one that individuals paying nothing into. So I say...be thankful for anything you get...because it's better than most.

As for the SS benefits...I was merely using it as part of an example...not arguing against anyone drawing SS bennies.

imported_MERC8401
01-02-2014, 10:36 PM
MERC8401: I agree in principle with many of your points, but I have a nagging concern about this.

Since money is "being saved" by cutting this benefit, what will that "saved money" be used for? None of the news articles I have seen addressed this nor asked this. If this money is only going to spent in other areas, then the benefit of preventing any financial collapse is negated. It is not "saved" after all, only spent on something else.

Well "saving" money when it comes to government budgets is never really saving. It's not like our government has a savings account somewhere and stockpiles money in it for a rainy day or something. "Saving" money in this sense would always mean reappropriating (sp?) it.

Big Blue
01-02-2014, 10:40 PM
I apologize if I made a general characterization of all military retirees...that was not done intentionally. I guess the greater point I was trying to make is that unlike most other people who retire from their professions, we are still of working age and do not have to depend solely on our pensions to get by. Now that doesn't mean that every retiree will get out and be able to find good employment, but we are far from the days of where most military retirees used to be. And although I feel bad that our COLA will take a hit, and that money can be cut from other programs...I just don't see an argument for why we should be able to keep it. I have paid nothing into my military pension...and not only will I receive that paycheck until I die, but it will continually rise each year to match inflation? That is just crazy to me. There isn't another retirement program out there that would be stupid enough to match that...especially one that individuals paying nothing into. So I say...be thankful for anything you get...because it's better than most.

As for the SS benefits...I was merely using it as part of an example...not arguing against anyone drawing SS bennies.

I beg to difer that you havn't paid into it. Call it hokey if you choose but we are a blank check that Uncle Sam can cash at anytime including up to our life. We are on the clock 24/7 and I have been shot at, mortered so I have put it all on the line and do believe we deserve it. I believe I read only 17% actually stay in to retirement and thats because a LOT of blood,sweat and tears go into that time for you AND your family. Absolutely, something has to give but the military advocates have already shown the 100+ redundant programs that should be nixed first. I think you are selling yourself and your military career short..nobody else offers this because no one out there is asked to do what we do. I will have 21 yrs within a week and more than ever do I realize that WE have to fight tooth and nail for our entitlements taken by thoase who have never served and do not understand the price of freedom. Ok, rant over!

imported_MERC8401
01-02-2014, 11:06 PM
I beg to difer that you havn't paid into it. Call it hokey if you choose but we are a blank check that Uncle Sam can cash at anytime including up to our life. We are on the clock 24/7 and I have been shot at, mortered so I have put it all on the line and do believe we deserve it. I believe I read only 17% actually stay in to retirement and thats because a LOT of blood,sweat and tears go into that time for you AND your family. Absolutely, something has to give but the military advocates have already shown the 100+ redundant programs that should be nixed first. I think you are selling yourself and your military career short..nobody else offers this because no one out there is asked to do what we do. I will have 21 yrs within a week and more than ever do I realize that WE have to fight tooth and nail for our entitlements taken by thoase who have never served and do not understand the price of freedom. Ok, rant over!

Listen...I don't agree with this cut to the COLA...I think it stinks...but our argument for keeping it is flawed. If it was up to me...every government employee would take a cut in their pensions in some form or another. The reason why no one else offers a retirement plan like the DoD is because it's not sustainable. No one is going to offer you a job for 20 years...let you retire...pay you for the rest of your life and make sure that money goes up with inflation each year...oh...and by the way...no contributions from you what so ever. I understand that we've given blood, sweat and tears, but unfortunatly that doesn't equate to money. The DoD got away with doing this because they just asked Big Brother to keep printing out money...well...we now see where that's gotten us.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
01-03-2014, 01:29 AM
Listen...I don't agree with this cut to the COLA...I think it stinks...but our argument for keeping it is flawed. If it was up to me...every government employee would take a cut in their pensions in some form or another. The reason why no one else offers a retirement plan like the DoD is because it's not sustainable. No one is going to offer you a job for 20 years...let you retire...pay you for the rest of your life and make sure that money goes up with inflation each year...oh...and by the way...no contributions from you what so ever. I understand that we've given blood, sweat and tears, but unfortunatly that doesn't equate to money. The DoD got away with doing this because they just asked Big Brother to keep printing out money...well...we now see where that's gotten us.

Great, then change the system for those who've served less than one term...not those who've spent a decade or more banking on a promise that, up until recently, has been consistently reaffirmed.

Big Blue
01-03-2014, 01:37 AM
Great, then change the system for those who've served less than one term...not those who've spent a decade or more banking on a promise that, up until recently, has been consistently reaffirmed.

Thx for posting that..that was my next point. In fact, they are already looking at changing our whole retirement system anyways so grandfather those past a certain point and let the newbies decide whether a new system is right for them. I'm pretty sure we all know that the current system can't remain in place since it's not solvent but you DON'T mess with those that have either already fulfilled their time or just about to. New enlistees, now there is your starting point! Hope it works out for us!

imported_MERC8401
01-03-2014, 02:04 AM
Thx for posting that..that was my next point. In fact, they are already looking at changing our whole retirement system anyways so grandfather those past a certain point and let the newbies decide whether a new system is right for them. I'm pretty sure we all know that the current system can't remain in place since it's not solvent but you DON'T mess with those that have either already fulfilled their time or just about to. New enlistees, now there is your starting point! Hope it works out for us!

The so called system is not being changed...if you do 20 years you are entitled to 50% of your High 3...or 40% if you chose REDUX. The only thing being changed is how much your pension is adjusted every year to match inflation. For a pension you paid nothing into...to adjust for inflation each year...by any precentage is a blessing. You might be upset, but the truth is that no one is going to jump ship over losing a precentage point of COLA.

I do agree that a change to the retirement system as a whole should happen....only if there is a grandfather clause for everyone in now...but this COLA thing is really a moot point.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
01-03-2014, 02:10 AM
The so called system is not being changed...if you do 20 years you are entitled to 50% of your High 3...or 40% if you chose REDUX. The only thing being changed is how much your pension is adjusted every year to match inflation. For a pension you paid nothing into...to adjust for inflation each year...by any precentage is a blessing. You might be upset, but the truth is that no one is going to jump ship over losing a precentage point of COLA.

I do agree that a change to the retirement system as a whole should happen....only if there is a grandfather clause for everyone in now...but this COLA thing is really a moot point.

Just a percentage? That equates to a 20% pay cut after 20 years. It's a loss of tens of thousands of dollars in retirement. Hardly a change in retirement that any educated person can ignore....especially when illegal aliens continue to enjoy tax credits, or billions are handed over to the Muslim brotherhood.

imported_MERC8401
01-03-2014, 03:34 AM
Just a percentage? That equates to a 20% pay cut after 20 years. It's a loss of tens of thousands of dollars in retirement. Hardly a change in retirement that any educated person can ignore....especially when illegal aliens continue to enjoy tax credits, or billions are handed over to the Muslim brotherhood.

Now giving illegal aliens tax credits and giving billions to the Muslim Brotherhood is something we can definitly get rid of. But because you mentioned these two groups of people I tend to take anything else you may say with a grain of salt. And your retirement isn't an annuity. Meaning...they can't take away something you never had. And I stand behind my original statement that the overall retirement has not changed. It's unfortunate that you may or may not be missing out on "tens" of thousands of dollars, but again...legislation has changed...sucks but it's been known to happen. It high time we stop whinning about our pockets being picked and start making sure that others get picked as well. Besides...it's hard for me to complain about other cuts and government spending when I can't even accept when it affects my money. So at least now we can all stand up...point our finger and say...now it's your turn.

fufu
01-03-2014, 03:00 PM
The so called system is not being changed...if you do 20 years you are entitled to 50% of your High 3...or 40% if you chose REDUX. The only thing being changed is how much your pension is adjusted every year to match inflation. For a pension you paid nothing into...to adjust for inflation each year...by any precentage is a blessing. You might be upset, but the truth is that no one is going to jump ship over losing a precentage point of COLA.

I do agree that a change to the retirement system as a whole should happen....only if there is a grandfather clause for everyone in now...but this COLA thing is really a moot point.

1) You aren't very good at math are you?

- 1% per year over 40 years invested at 5% comes out to be a pretty large number. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not a rich person...and between 70K to 120K+ means alot to me. This year active duty got a 1% pay raise, so I received about $40 a month....thats 480 a year...4800 over 10 years and 19000 over 40 years. Now if I invest that $40 over the same period and average 5%, that 19K turns into 59K. 1% is a hell of alot of money.

2) If you think SS is going to be there when the current crop of AD personnel reach 62 I think you are mistaken. My retirement plans do not include SS benefits. I'm 32, make maximum IRA contributions, have only low interest debt and leave WELL within my means.

The real cuts need to come from welfare, food stamps and unemployment handouts. My sister is on welfare, b/c she is lazy and unwilling to work. The govt has made welfare more inticing that working...and thats a problem.

sandsjames
01-03-2014, 03:34 PM
I thought I read something that stated that, at retirement age, the actual retirement payment will revert to what it would have been if the COLA rate had remained equal to inflation. This means that once I am no longer able to work, my retirement check will be what it would have always been. It sucks the COLA rate will be lower now, but later, when I really need it, it will be good. I can think of worse things.

Of course this all hinges on no other big changes affecting those who have already earned these benefits.

imnohero
01-03-2014, 05:50 PM
LOL, 5% returns. That's a joke right? Long term investment companies are all changing their return forecasts to 3%. Unless something changes dramatically, regular investors should really only plan on a long term return of 2% for the next decade or two.

BalboaSwing
01-03-2014, 07:24 PM
The so called system is not being changed...if you do 20 years you are entitled to 50% of your High 3...or 40% if you chose REDUX. The only thing being changed is how much your pension is adjusted every year to match inflation. For a pension you paid nothing into...to adjust for inflation each year...by any precentage is a blessing. You might be upset, but the truth is that no one is going to jump ship over losing a precentage point of COLA.

I do agree that a change to the retirement system as a whole should happen....only if there is a grandfather clause for everyone in now...but this COLA thing is really a moot point.

I'm not really sure where you're getting your information, but according to:
10 U.S. Code § 1401a - Adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay to reflect changes in Consumer Price Index
(b) Cost-of-Living Adjustments Based on CPI Increases.—
(1) Increase required.— Effective on December 1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall increase the retired pay of members and former members entitled to that pay in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3).
(2) Percentage increase.— Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Secretary shall increase the retired pay of each member and former member by the percent (adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) by which—
(A) the price index for the base quarter of that year, exceeds
(B) the base index.
(3) Reduced percentage for certain post-august 1, 1986 members.— If the percent determined under paragraph (2) is greater than 1 percent, the Secretary shall increase the retired pay of each member and former member who first became a member on or after August 1, 1986, and has elected to receive a bonus under section 322 (as in effect before the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008) or section 354 of title 37, by the difference between—
(A) the percent determined under paragraph (2); and
(B) 1 percent.

As you can see, COLA based on CPI is part of the "system" and they are most certainly changing it. In the above law, they even differentiate the COLA between a those who took High-3 versus REDUX. If you took the $30K bonus at 15 years, you get the REDUX COLA of CPI - 1%. That coupled with the 40% of base pay retirement made REDUX a moronic choice for anyone that did the math. Now they modify it so that everyone gets the 1% COLA cut?

As for not "paying" into the retirement system. As I'm sure you're aware, the military did not always have a TSP for us active duty folks. Even now it doesn't do any matching. Why is that? Because the military has its own pension program...of which I was acutely aware of and made serious life decisions based on. Here was my payment... 1) no choice in who I work for 2) no choice in where I live 3) Wife has no career opportunities due to frequent moves 4) Kids don't have roots anywhere 5) Numerous trips to the sandbox (bonus: Indirect Fire landing near me) with which I MUST go 6) Most of my vacation time goes towards visiting distant relatives because I've never lived near my family...btw these are not really vacations 7) Did I mention my family stressing out every time I deployed 8) I've missed so many holidays that I think I've been away for more than I've been home in the last 12 years. 9) When deployed...12+ hour days, 7 days a week, for months on end with no overtime pay + roommates. The thing is, I know tons of folks that suffered a lot more suck than me. So excuse me, but the sacrifices made are not "nothing"...I believe I've "paid" for my pension.

Also...I think the way they phrased this COLA cut marginalizes what we're actually losing. If my retirement pension is $2500/mo and the CPI shows that inflation for the year is 1% (or $25/mo), and they chop that adjustment to 0% (i.e. cut it 1% and reduce my adjustment to $0)...then my Cost of Living Adjustment is really cut by 100% for the year. One year isn't that bad...it only adds up to $300 less purchasing power during the year. Unfortunately this compounds annually...so the next year, the loss is over $600 of purchasing power, after 10 years your purchasing power is down over $3000 a year and by 20 years it's over $6000 a year (or $500+ per month). So if we have a CPI of 1% for 20 years (just for this example), my base retirement pay under this COLA cutting change remains at $30K/year yet under the old system I was should be getting $36K. Hmmm...20% retirement pay cut.

Here's another thought...why pick on military retirees if the government needs additional funds? I would be fine if the government raised taxes on everyone or cut expenditures to cover their commitments. I believe that I committed to serving my country for the last 20+ years, for that, the government made a commitment to me and my family. Now they are reneging on their part of the deal and I am justifiably upset.

MitchellJD1969
01-03-2014, 08:00 PM
I'm not really sure where you're getting your information, but according to:
10 U.S. Code § 1401a - Adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay to reflect changes in Consumer Price Index
(b) Cost-of-Living Adjustments Based on CPI Increases.—
(1) Increase required.— Effective on December 1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall increase the retired pay of members and former members entitled to that pay in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3).
(2) Percentage increase.— Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Secretary shall increase the retired pay of each member and former member by the percent (adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) by which—
(A) the price index for the base quarter of that year, exceeds
(B) the base index.
(3) Reduced percentage for certain post-august 1, 1986 members.— If the percent determined under paragraph (2) is greater than 1 percent, the Secretary shall increase the retired pay of each member and former member who first became a member on or after August 1, 1986, and has elected to receive a bonus under section 322 (as in effect before the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008) or section 354 of title 37, by the difference between—
(A) the percent determined under paragraph (2); and
(B) 1 percent.

As you can see, COLA based on CPI is part of the "system" and they are most certainly changing it. In the above law, they even differentiate the COLA between a those who took High-3 versus REDUX. If you took the $30K bonus at 15 years, you get the REDUX COLA of CPI - 1%. That coupled with the 40% of base pay retirement made REDUX a moronic choice for anyone that did the math. Now they modify it so that everyone gets the 1% COLA cut?

As for not "paying" into the retirement system. As I'm sure you're aware, the military did not always have a TSP for us active duty folks. Even now it doesn't do any matching. Why is that? Because the military has its own pension program...of which I was acutely aware of and made serious life decisions based on. Here was my payment... 1) no choice in who I work for 2) no choice in where I live 3) Wife has no career opportunities due to frequent moves 4) Kids don't have roots anywhere 5) Numerous trips to the sandbox (bonus: Indirect Fire landing near me) with which I MUST go 6) Most of my vacation time goes towards visiting distant relatives because I've never lived near my family...btw these are not really vacations 7) Did I mention my family stressing out every time I deployed 8) I've missed so many holidays that I think I've been away for more than I've been home in the last 12 years. 9) When deployed...12+ hour days, 7 days a week, for months on end with no overtime pay + roommates. The thing is, I know tons of folks that suffered a lot more suck than me. So excuse me, but the sacrifices made are not "nothing"...I believe I've "paid" for my pension.

Also...I think the way they phrased this COLA cut marginalizes what we're actually losing. If my retirement pension is $2500/mo and the CPI shows that inflation for the year is 1% (or $25/mo), and they chop that adjustment to 0% (i.e. cut it 1% and reduce my adjustment to $0)...then my Cost of Living Adjustment is really cut by 100% for the year. One year isn't that bad...it only adds up to $300 less purchasing power during the year. Unfortunately this compounds annually...so the next year, the loss is over $600 of purchasing power, after 10 years your purchasing power is down over $3000 a year and by 20 years it's over $6000 a year (or $500+ per month). So if we have a CPI of 1% for 20 years (just for this example), my base retirement pay under this COLA cutting change remains at $30K/year yet under the old system I was should be getting $36K. Hmmm...20% retirement pay cut.

Here's another thought...why pick on military retirees if the government needs additional funds? I would be fine if the government raised taxes on everyone or cut expenditures to cover their commitments. I believe that I committed to serving my country for the last 20+ years, for that, the government made a commitment to me and my family. Now they are reneging on their part of the deal and I am justifiably upset.

Dude, in the end we don't matter. As a voting block we are outnumbered by those on the entitlement gravy train, those that are unionized, and those who suck at the teet of cronyism. Wouldn't surprise me if we get even more screwed in the next few years.

garhkal
01-03-2014, 08:42 PM
I beg to difer that you havn't paid into it. Call it hokey if you choose but we are a blank check that Uncle Sam can cash at anytime including up to our life. We are on the clock 24/7 and I have been shot at, mortered so I have put it all on the line and do believe we deserve it. I believe I read only 17% actually stay in to retirement and thats because a LOT of blood,sweat and tears go into that time for you AND your family. Absolutely, something has to give but the military advocates have already shown the 100+ redundant programs that should be nixed first. I think you are selling yourself and your military career short..nobody else offers this because no one out there is asked to do what we do. I will have 21 yrs within a week and more than ever do I realize that WE have to fight tooth and nail for our entitlements taken by thoase who have never served and do not understand the price of freedom. Ok, rant over!

A while back (95 iirc) during an off base discussion on mil matters and politics, someone brought up a good idea that for ANYONE in politics who by their post has to vote on anything military related, should have to be required to have had 2 yrs min of mil experience for that post. And a min of 4 for the POTUS..

imported_MERC8401
01-03-2014, 10:59 PM
1) You aren't very good at math are you?

- 1% per year over 40 years invested at 5% comes out to be a pretty large number. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not a rich person...and between 70K to 120K+ means alot to me. This year active duty got a 1% pay raise, so I received about $40 a month....thats 480 a year...4800 over 10 years and 19000 over 40 years. Now if I invest that $40 over the same period and average 5%, that 19K turns into 59K. 1% is a hell of alot of money.

2) If you think SS is going to be there when the current crop of AD personnel reach 62 I think you are mistaken. My retirement plans do not include SS benefits. I'm 32, make maximum IRA contributions, have only low interest debt and leave WELL within my means.

The real cuts need to come from welfare, food stamps and unemployment handouts. My sister is on welfare, b/c she is lazy and unwilling to work. The govt has made welfare more inticing that working...and thats a problem.

1. I don't believe I performed any math equations in what I said...so it's impossible to deduce my strength or weakness in math. I never said that a loss of 1% in COLA wouldn't turn out to be a lot of money. I said that it's a small percentage point and we shouldn't complain. Your example of exactly how much money you would make only drives home the point that the system needs to change. Your example shows why the current system is not sustainable....much like the SS system. Which brings me to....

2. I don't believe I said anything about the SS system still being viable once I reach 62...I was speaking of how things are now. Which leads me to believe you aren't reading what I write at all. And why do you think that SS won't be around when we are 62? Because people refuse to allow the system to change. Everyone feels entitled...so entitled that they are more willing to let the system fail...then to take a cut for the good of all. I understand that we hate when we get promised something and it doesn't come to pass. We tend to point our fingers and say...well they got it!...why not me?! And I say...I would rather have something...then have nothing at all. Even if it's not exactly what I was promised.

Lastly...sorry you have a lazy sister...but not everyone on government assistance is lazy. Unfortunately a lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking that the real problem is with the poor people...when in fact it's the rich people that are bringing this country down. Mainly due to greed.

I'm sure that if something were to happen to you or someone in your family who ended up out of work and were looking...you wouldn't tell them not to take unemployment benefits would you? But I'm sure you wouldn't think of yourself as lazy....no...no...it's everyone else who is lazy and sucking this country dry. I say that's bs...just like your 1% of COLA reduction is a drop in the bucket...so is government assistance. You really want to put a dent in the deficit? Raise taxes.

imported_MERC8401
01-03-2014, 11:13 PM
I'm not really sure where you're getting your information, but according to:
10 U.S. Code § 1401a - Adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay to reflect changes in Consumer Price Index
(b) Cost-of-Living Adjustments Based on CPI Increases.—
(1) Increase required.— Effective on December 1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall increase the retired pay of members and former members entitled to that pay in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3).
(2) Percentage increase.— Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Secretary shall increase the retired pay of each member and former member by the percent (adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) by which—
(A) the price index for the base quarter of that year, exceeds
(B) the base index.
(3) Reduced percentage for certain post-august 1, 1986 members.— If the percent determined under paragraph (2) is greater than 1 percent, the Secretary shall increase the retired pay of each member and former member who first became a member on or after August 1, 1986, and has elected to receive a bonus under section 322 (as in effect before the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008) or section 354 of title 37, by the difference between—
(A) the percent determined under paragraph (2); and
(B) 1 percent.

As you can see, COLA based on CPI is part of the "system" and they are most certainly changing it. In the above law, they even differentiate the COLA between a those who took High-3 versus REDUX. If you took the $30K bonus at 15 years, you get the REDUX COLA of CPI - 1%. That coupled with the 40% of base pay retirement made REDUX a moronic choice for anyone that did the math. Now they modify it so that everyone gets the 1% COLA cut?

As for not "paying" into the retirement system. As I'm sure you're aware, the military did not always have a TSP for us active duty folks. Even now it doesn't do any matching. Why is that? Because the military has its own pension program...of which I was acutely aware of and made serious life decisions based on. Here was my payment... 1) no choice in who I work for 2) no choice in where I live 3) Wife has no career opportunities due to frequent moves 4) Kids don't have roots anywhere 5) Numerous trips to the sandbox (bonus: Indirect Fire landing near me) with which I MUST go 6) Most of my vacation time goes towards visiting distant relatives because I've never lived near my family...btw these are not really vacations 7) Did I mention my family stressing out every time I deployed 8) I've missed so many holidays that I think I've been away for more than I've been home in the last 12 years. 9) When deployed...12+ hour days, 7 days a week, for months on end with no overtime pay + roommates. The thing is, I know tons of folks that suffered a lot more suck than me. So excuse me, but the sacrifices made are not "nothing"...I believe I've "paid" for my pension.

Also...I think the way they phrased this COLA cut marginalizes what we're actually losing. If my retirement pension is $2500/mo and the CPI shows that inflation for the year is 1% (or $25/mo), and they chop that adjustment to 0% (i.e. cut it 1% and reduce my adjustment to $0)...then my Cost of Living Adjustment is really cut by 100% for the year. One year isn't that bad...it only adds up to $300 less purchasing power during the year. Unfortunately this compounds annually...so the next year, the loss is over $600 of purchasing power, after 10 years your purchasing power is down over $3000 a year and by 20 years it's over $6000 a year (or $500+ per month). So if we have a CPI of 1% for 20 years (just for this example), my base retirement pay under this COLA cutting change remains at $30K/year yet under the old system I was should be getting $36K. Hmmm...20% retirement pay cut.

Here's another thought...why pick on military retirees if the government needs additional funds? I would be fine if the government raised taxes on everyone or cut expenditures to cover their commitments. I believe that I committed to serving my country for the last 20+ years, for that, the government made a commitment to me and my family. Now they are reneging on their part of the deal and I am justifiably upset.

I was referring to the overall retirement percentage...not to the COLA. It's disingenuous when people say that retirement is getting cut. When civilians hear that they automatically think we are losing our pensions and we know that is not true. In fact most civilians don't understand how are retirement system works...and if you were to tell them they would probably not see that much of a problem with this reduction in your COLA either. Now they might not say that to your face. They might point at that pretty magnetic yellow ribbon on the trunk of their car and say how much of a hero you are, but truth be told I have a sneaking suspicion that most think we get paid too much. Now I'm not saying they are right...but we've all seen how the respect for teachers and their wages have slowly dropped. I believe we are headed down that path with the civilian populous. The farther we get from 9/11 the less we will feel needed...sad to say...but true.

As for all your math...as I've said before...it only drives home the point that the system is not sustainable and needs to change. People want to say why bother the military retirement system when it doesn't make much of an impact in our overall deficit? And your math only proves that it will. If all military retirees lived till their 90...we are talking substantial amounts of money. I'm sorry you made life decisions based on legislation...but so did people who thought they could depend on SS benefits. You can see what that's gotten everybody. I say...don't deploy anymore...don't put your family through the hassle...just get out...cut your loses and move on. Maybe that will be better than losing that percentage point.

fufu
01-04-2014, 04:26 PM
1. I don't believe I performed any math equations in what I said...so it's impossible to deduce my strength or weakness in math. I never said that a loss of 1% in COLA wouldn't turn out to be a lot of money. I said that it's a small percentage point and we shouldn't complain. Your example of exactly how much money you would make only drives home the point that the system needs to change. Your example shows why the current system is not sustainable....much like the SS system. Which brings me to....

2. I don't believe I said anything about the SS system still being viable once I reach 62...I was speaking of how things are now. Which leads me to believe you aren't reading what I write at all. And why do you think that SS won't be around when we are 62? Because people refuse to allow the system to change. Everyone feels entitled...so entitled that they are more willing to let the system fail...then to take a cut for the good of all. I understand that we hate when we get promised something and it doesn't come to pass. We tend to point our fingers and say...well they got it!...why not me?! And I say...I would rather have something...then have nothing at all. Even if it's not exactly what I was promised.

Lastly...sorry you have a lazy sister...but not everyone on government assistance is lazy. Unfortunately a lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking that the real problem is with the poor people...when in fact it's the rich people that are bringing this country down. Mainly due to greed.I'm sure that if something were to happen to you or someone in your family who ended up out of work and were looking...you wouldn't tell them not to take unemployment benefits would you? But I'm sure you wouldn't think of yourself as lazy....no...no...it's everyone else who is lazy and sucking this country dry. I say that's bs...just like your 1% of COLA reduction is a drop in the bucket...so is government assistance. You really want to put a dent in the deficit? Raise taxes.


So, you claim that 1% is so little we shouldn't complain...but you never ran the numbers to see how much that 1% really is? Is that what your saying? If you are going to make claims, back them up with tangible data.

The last two comments I highlighted tells me you are irrational.

Rich people are ruining America? You might be right, but not because of greed. But because of their influence on main stream media that the sheepeople follow.

Raise taxes? Seriously? You must be one of the sheep b/c the elected politicians of this country have shown that raising taxes will only increase spending. Gov't spending is OUT OF CONTROL. They can't use the money they have wisely, why on earth would I want to give them more?

fufu
01-04-2014, 04:28 PM
LOL, 5% returns. That's a joke right? Long term investment companies are all changing their return forecasts to 3%. Unless something changes dramatically, regular investors should really only plan on a long term return of 2% for the next decade or two.

5% was an example....but I don't care how you slice it. 1% at 1% return is better than getting nothing at all!

MisterBen
01-04-2014, 06:44 PM
You do realize we are only talking about a reduction in COLA right? Not a reduction in someone's retirement. You know most of the military people I know who retire are only 38 to 42 years old. They have other jobs...usually still in the military as a GS or sometime contractor. 10 to 15 years after taking that job...they retire again and draw another pension...by this time...they are coming close to drawing Social Security. So here this person sits...drawing two government pensions and SS benefits...and then complains because they are going to lose 1% from COLA. Are you fucking kidding me?

Now this might not be an example for every retiree, but we are far from the days of military members getting out and being totally homeless/jobless. And let's face it...our retirement isn't something that can be lived on anyway.

The sky is not falling.

I will be in my 50s when I active duty retire which will be in 4.5 years and my years of service will be near 30 due to my reserve time so the base pay calculation will be good. Yes, we have an excellent retirement package but there was a time when you can work for a private company and receive a pension after 20 years. Now private companies have converted those packages to 401K programs that a retiree cannot live on alone (and hopefully the market wont tank when he/she nears retirement). Welfare needs to be cut because there are many more people on welfare than receive military benefits. About 18 percent of the total military makes it to 20 years of service. So we are a small group. I do not know about your feelings on the minimum wage but many receive subsidies in food stamps due to their low incomes, so perhaps an increase in the minimum wage will decrease the benefits immensely (but I know it hurts jobs and raises prices on products). The bottom line is that taxpayer's money has been mismanaged for eons and now the ones who worked and fought for their retirement will be the ones who suffer first.

TJMAC77SP
01-05-2014, 05:13 AM
1. I don't believe I performed any math equations in what I said...so it's impossible to deduce my strength or weakness in math. I never said that a loss of 1% in COLA wouldn't turn out to be a lot of money. I said that it's a small percentage point and we shouldn't complain. Your example of exactly how much money you would make only drives home the point that the system needs to change. Your example shows why the current system is not sustainable....much like the SS system. Which brings me to....

2. I don't believe I said anything about the SS system still being viable once I reach 62...I was speaking of how things are now. Which leads me to believe you aren't reading what I write at all. And why do you think that SS won't be around when we are 62? Because people refuse to allow the system to change. Everyone feels entitled...so entitled that they are more willing to let the system fail...then to take a cut for the good of all. I understand that we hate when we get promised something and it doesn't come to pass. We tend to point our fingers and say...well they got it!...why not me?! And I say...I would rather have something...then have nothing at all. Even if it's not exactly what I was promised.

Lastly...sorry you have a lazy sister...but not everyone on government assistance is lazy. Unfortunately a lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking that the real problem is with the poor people...when in fact it's the rich people that are bringing this country down. Mainly due to greed.

I'm sure that if something were to happen to you or someone in your family who ended up out of work and were looking...you wouldn't tell them not to take unemployment benefits would you? But I'm sure you wouldn't think of yourself as lazy....no...no...it's everyone else who is lazy and sucking this country dry. I say that's bs...just like your 1% of COLA reduction is a drop in the bucket...so is government assistance. You really want to put a dent in the deficit? Raise taxes.

12 percent of the federal budget is not exactly a 'drop in the bucket'.

MisterBen
01-05-2014, 12:28 PM
About Merc's #2. I think he forgets that he pays into SS. If I pay into something, I do feel entitled to receive something for it.

Chief_KO
01-05-2014, 12:44 PM
About Merc's #2. I think he forgets that he pays into SS. If I pay into something, I do feel entitled to receive something for it.

Same with military retirement. I forget the exact amount but everyone pays around 6% into the retirement fund. The $ is taken off the top before payment to the member, but it is included in the overall manpower/personnel budget. We pay in, just that we don't see it.

Laws were passed to directly tie AD pay & military retirement annual increase (COLA) to the EPI/CPI to ensure both rise commensurate with prices. This has been (at least for AD pay) since the 80's. This is the first year that AD COLA was not equal to the EPI (1.8%). The house recommended 1.8% (to follow the law) while the DoD recommended 1.0% (due to sequestration) and the President recommended (and signed into law) 1.0% citing his executive power as CINC due to the overall fiscal condition of the federal govt.

The fight is not over, but too many AD personnel are "willing to accept the 1% is better than 0% position", when in reality 1% is almost a 50% reduction in what the COLA was mandated to be. Add to that the low number (approx 10%) of eligibles that are members of AFSA...Congress hears 90% are okay with the cuts...

Your freedom of speech is limited while in uniform (regarding speaking out against DoD, Congress, or Presidential policies), but your voice is heard when it is spoken by organizations in The Military Coalition (AFSA, VFW, American Legion to name a few).

Cuts to AD pay & allowances and military retirement will not happen in one fell swoop but will be small and incremental. We are an All Volunteer force, we willingly join to serve with the promise (and faith) that we will be duly compensated.

BENDER56
01-05-2014, 03:02 PM
Well, if I had retired at age 37 (which I conceivably could have done) I'd probably be pissed about this, too. But as it were, I enlisted late in life and retired at age 54 after 26 years.

If this new COLA calculation stays in effect, it will only impact my retired pay for the next five years, at which point I turn 62 and I'm back to full annual COLA adjustments. Also, under the new calculation, all retirees, upon turning 62, have their pay readjusted back to the full amount they would have gotten if they had received the full COLA each year.

So I can understand others anger over this but it's merely a blip for some of us.

Now, as to the bigger issue of this being a broken promise; I'm agnostic. Sure, you can look at it that way but it doesn't matter because the government does whatever it wants, "promises" or not. If enough people raise a big enough stink about a governmental decision (or if enough well-connected people throw enough money at the right legislators) you might get it to go your way. That's how the system works. Yesterdays "promises" were good yesterday.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
01-05-2014, 05:11 PM
Also, under the new calculation, all retirees, upon turning 62, have their pay readjusted back to the full amount they would have gotten if they had received the full COLA each year.



No, after you turn 62 your retirement pay is not readjusted. They simply readjust your COLA so you don't continue to lose more money from age 62 on. In other words, whatever loss of money you incurred during your working years is gone for good. If you lost 20% over 20 years, then your pay from age 62 will continue to be 20% less than what it would have been if they never reduced COLA in the first place.

Chief_KO
01-05-2014, 08:04 PM
No, after you turn 62 your retirement pay is not readjusted. They simply readjust your COLA so you don't continue to lose more money from age 62 on. In other words, whatever loss of money you incurred during your working years is gone for good. If you lost 20% over 20 years, then your pay from age 62 will continue to be 20% less than what it would have been if they never reduced COLA in the first place.

And of course the D.C. betting line is that they are taking "the under" that most military retirees will die before age 62 (ala REDUX).

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
01-05-2014, 09:14 PM
And of course the D.C. betting line is that they are taking "the under" that most military retirees will die before age 62 (ala REDUX).

Or they could put something into the vaccines to make that reality. Oh wait, that's crazy talk!

Chief_KO
01-06-2014, 12:18 AM
Or they could put something into the vaccines to make that reality. Oh wait, that's crazy talk!

Like an annual flu shot????

BENDER56
01-06-2014, 05:11 AM
No, after you turn 62 your retirement pay is not readjusted. They simply readjust your COLA so you don't continue to lose more money from age 62 on. In other words, whatever loss of money you incurred during your working years is gone for good. If you lost 20% over 20 years, then your pay from age 62 will continue to be 20% less than what it would have been if they never reduced COLA in the first place.

It's true we never get that money back. But the way I interpreted it was, at 62 we don't just start getting the full COLA adjustments again, but also the amount of pay we receive jumps to the amount it would be had we been getting the full annual adjustment all along. Maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly.

In any case, the words of mine that you quoted in your previous comment weren't really mine -- I pasted them from an article about the new changes.

Here's the complete quotation: "Moreover, when working-age retirees reach the age of 62, their retired pay would be readjusted back to the full amount they would have gotten if they had received the full COLA each year. After 62, retirees would receive the full COLA adjustments."

Here's a link: http://www.defenseone.com/management/2013/12/heres-why-proposed-military-retiree-benefit-cuts-are-no-big-deal/75587/?oref=d-interstitial-continue

garhkal
01-06-2014, 06:06 AM
Or they could put something into the vaccines to make that reality. Oh wait, that's crazy talk!
Like an annual flu shot????

We are the Govt's Guinea pigs.

Retired&Lovingit
01-06-2014, 11:22 PM
It's not over. COLA changes are a start. Next will be the thinning of what is covered by the VA. Read about CBO Option 21. I think congrass will continue to cherry pick our benefits with a goal of avoiding major disruptions, turning veterans against veterans. See changes to medical, retirement, VA.


http://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44756

imported_MERC8401
01-07-2014, 01:37 AM
So, you claim that 1% is so little we shouldn't complain...but you never ran the numbers to see how much that 1% really is? Is that what your saying? If you are going to make claims, back them up with tangible data.

The last two comments I highlighted tells me you are irrational.

Rich people are ruining America? You might be right, but not because of greed. But because of their influence on main stream media that the sheepeople follow.

Raise taxes? Seriously? You must be one of the sheep b/c the elected politicians of this country have shown that raising taxes will only increase spending. Gov't spending is OUT OF CONTROL. They can't use the money they have wisely, why on earth would I want to give them more?

I didn't say I didn't run the numbers...I said I didn't run numbers and post my math on the forums. The math will be diffent for everyone...because everyone's situation is different.

Secondly you say that rich people have taken over mainstream media and that is how they are getting "sheepeople" to follow. However you tell me raising taxes will only increase spending because some elected officials say so. Well guess who else rich people bought? Elected officials. I'm no more of a sheepeople than you are. You chose to believe what you want and I chose to believe what I want. All I know is that when taxes weren't cut to the levels they are now...we did not have some of the same problems. Schools were better...bridges weren't falling apart...cities weren't going bankrupt...people weren't having to fight over their pensions...SS benefits weren't at risk of being lost. I'm not saying raising taxes are the only fix...I'm saying that we shouldn't rule it out. Oh and I'm far from being irrational. I'm a middle of the road kind of guy...I don't wear a foil hat for either side.

Chief_KO
01-08-2014, 07:43 PM
Another problem with our "friends" in D.C. is how the laws are written (all the additional riders, conflicting statements, etc.)
House Joint Resolution 59 (HJRes 59) which is this two-year budget agreement cuts retiree COLA by 1% but at the same time eliminates the upcoming 24.7% cut to doctors treating TRICARE or MEDICARE patients.
So, this bill is both GOOD and BAD for veterans, retirees, Active Duty.
Guess this explains the "I voted for the bill before I voted against it" and "We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it"...
WTF WTF WTF WTF

CORNELIUSSEON
01-12-2014, 03:04 PM
Under the Bipartisan Budget deal.

Working-age military retirees would receive an annual pay adjustment that is 1 percentage point less than the rise in consumer prices. For example, the 1.7 percent COLA that took effect on Dec. 1 and will first appear in January checks would be just 0.7 percent for military retirees under age 62 but still be 1.7 percent for older retirees if the proposal were now in effect. (See more at 10 Dec Army Times)

This fits in with current rules for recipients of Social Security. Recipients who are younger than 66 have a severe cap as to working compensation, while they also collect Social Security, while those 66 and older have no cap.

sandsjames
01-12-2014, 03:56 PM
It's true we never get that money back. But the way I interpreted it was, at 62 we don't just start getting the full COLA adjustments again, but also the amount of pay we receive jumps to the amount it would be had we been getting the full annual adjustment all along. Maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly.

In any case, the words of mine that you quoted in your previous comment weren't really mine -- I pasted them from an article about the new changes.

Here's the complete quotation: "Moreover, when working-age retirees reach the age of 62, their retired pay would be readjusted back to the full amount they would have gotten if they had received the full COLA each year. After 62, retirees would receive the full COLA adjustments."

Here's a link: http://www.defenseone.com/management/2013/12/heres-why-proposed-military-retiree-benefit-cuts-are-no-big-deal/75587/?oref=d-interstitial-continue

That's pretty much how I understand it, too.

Rainmaker
02-08-2014, 05:21 PM
In 1972 the pay rate for a E-1 with less than 4 months in the service was one hundred and 44 dollars and ten cents. In 1973 the Starting pay for an E1 was three hundred and seven dollars and 20 cents. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why the starting pay jumped thru the roof. The draft ended and the country went to an all-volunteer force. If we went to cut the cost of the Armed Forces we could cut E-1 thru E-4 pay (under 4 years) by 50 percent. I would grandfather troops that have already enlisted. Congress needs to grow a set and bring back the draft. If we drafted people into the Armed Forces we would not have such High personal costs. What do u all think about that?

Rainmaker agree. A 2 year mandatory service commitment, followed by free college or technical training (upon honorable discharge), would do this generation of lazy, Fat bastards some good. But, no draft deferments for rich kids and the hundreds of thousands of support contractor billets, that are bleeding the taxpayers dry would have to get cut off the books first. NomSayin?

Rainmaker
02-08-2014, 05:37 PM
I will be in my 50s when I active duty retire which will be in 4.5 years and my years of service will be near 30 due to my reserve time so the base pay calculation will be good. Yes, we have an excellent retirement package but there was a time when you can work for a private company and receive a pension after 20 years. Now private companies have converted those packages to 401K programs that a retiree cannot live on alone (and hopefully the market wont tank when he/she nears retirement). Welfare needs to be cut because there are many more people on welfare than receive military benefits. About 18 percent of the total military makes it to 20 years of service. So we are a small group. I do not know about your feelings on the minimum wage but many receive subsidies in food stamps due to their low incomes, so perhaps an increase in the minimum wage will decrease the benefits immensely (but I know it hurts jobs and raises prices on products). The bottom line is that taxpayer's money has been mismanaged for eons and now the ones who worked and fought for their retirement will be the ones who suffer first.

It all boils down to one thing. No Mother Fucking Manufacturing base left (see NAFTA, GATT, ETC). Thanks Bush, HillBillary, Bush II, Barry O, (Hillbillary II, Bush III?). We don't make anything in this country (cept Hamburgers) anymore. Minimum wage would not matter one bit. IFFFFF there was a better job to move UP to after you got some work experience. These shit jobs wasn't designed to support a family of 4 for 10 years NomSayin? Grand Oligarch Party sold it's base down the river to Corporate Crony Interests for Cheap (read Slave) Labor. Socialist Party of Misfit Toys sold the Southern Democrats down the Muhfuggin river to grow the Free Shit Army. 401K gettin ready soon to be pushed into .gov mandatory "retirement" accounts to buy our worthless debt that no one else wants to buy anymore. Who say 3% return? haha. You crack Rainmaker the Hell up... Quit watchin the TV bitches. More like Minus 1% after fees, tax penalties and inflation. You might as well put your cash under the mattress. Buy the shit you need now while your $ still worth something. Get out of paper. Pay off your house or get rid of it. Go long precious metals. Gold, Silver, quality Steel Tools and Lead Muhfuggas....